IN THE HIGH comm" OF KARNATAKA AT B3kNG.é;i;C_5:R;E..A4
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAY OF JUNE, %%.?{ib0'5;
ma HON'Bi_E MR.3usfr:cE %%MA;;;;;gm '
wszrr PETITION mo.113gigJf;2oc8{*aa?g;m§;s:g
BETWEEN: k k%
1.
Subramar1ya R.ao _ _
S/o. Sar3i.Qth;a»n_3 Rae
Aged a;beL’§_t 4§?.*1yea-r$__v_’ _ ‘ ‘ ‘
R/at Ha2§§p~a*:g::§ 1»-zsuse .%
Ye§V%c:’r’TV;’+c:§s;j=;
Ud;xpi__”!*aiu’!a;V-a_;’ic! Distrzfgt -j S?6 :01.
._ A % , * PETITIONER
(By M/s. “S’i’arfzp.at~. “:fa’i£aia Law
_ Asscgciatas, Aa’ve«cate}
% 1 P{ar}i;’akr%%s%zna Rae
“-S/C2; Yfitarayan Rae
Ageti abeut 60 years
44?, “5 Essex
“1033 Cress, J 9 Nagar
Myscre – 570 068.
Union of Irzdia
Represented by its Secretary
Having its Office
At New Deihi.
3. Pest Master
Head Post Office
Ucmpi Bistrict — 5?6 101.
4. Prameeia Rajagopaia Ra¥:_)~..__
D/0, Y Narayana Rae
Majcr _
No.11, 7″‘ Cross V
Indira Nagar ~ r
Chennai – 600 C3233 f’ :.;<.t. FZ_E:vSPONDENTS
(By Sri v s s-:et<.;:g;t:».§, Ac:yc:¢;i£ett%t:=;§r $<t2..;駧
This Lgntder Artickes 226 am
227 f.’_V thié:’_’ Ztftdflitia praying to quash the
order ‘-._c¥ated ‘3fi.,41E3,€3?,”‘ _ in O.S.NO.89/2002,, on
IA.N0.I’v’..passed_ by’ th’eF’rincipaE Civit Judge (Jr.Dn),
Udupi Vic£e1«.VAnnexu’;e+:t.>.; and grant such cther and
further’ siefiefs’-.» ._ ‘ ‘
katition coming on for preiimfinary hearing
__.in’ El” gt-o_L:’p”tt.!}i;t:v..day, the court made the foE£c3wing:—
_ T QBQEE
Thé ‘v$pp£icatéon flied by the 13’ respendent
directiens fmm the Ceurt to direct the
ear
defendant: No.3 te deposit the ameunt withdrawn in
the accounts mentioned in ‘A’ scheduie to the eiaint
was aiiewed by the triai Court. Hence, tti.e__”–§§re’$e%itV
Petition.
2. The iearned counsel iffer’ t”e.e’* _f)et:t’iefie1:i
contends that the ma: C’ei,§vLtt.V1centrr§ittee’~.veih_;”eV::re;r in’-L’
passing the impugneq orcier;–TT_t*:e”*»tAifiai’Ceu_rt,..é3ias pre-
juéged the issue on n’aJr’.:§ pie’e$i.t1g…the impugned
order. Theiitrleie<:aurt cemiinoiti h ai;e directed the
petitieeei- the amount in View of the
fact thavtetifie :Vpetit_ien:e'r has a ieng way to go in
eetiéibféebieg hie' right: in the suit,
heard the learned counsei fer the
Det%tio'?te:'*": and the teamed ceuneei for the
teepetidents. an hearing both the counseis Yam of
Aithieiiiconsiciered View that the Petition requires to be
V hwrejected for the feiiewing reasons:
054……
1) The decree sought, is for a deciaratmn that
the ameunts covered under the plant ‘A’ scheduie
exclusiveiy be-ieng ta the deceased nameiy,:.~theVV:$§esteVr
of the plaintiff and therefore the 3′” defen.§ia53t:VA£j:aFe .’i¢”T V
right over the same and consequential “r,eI’§e’fs.”–E;u_§?i’s:s§_;.’
the pendency of the suit the-eamefmes wereV”a¢y§t_rjdf§ae}n
by the gfietitieraer. when fer sc far
as plain’: “A scheduie’e§’r1ct§:nt.:_»’fie’wefijerned, the same
has aiready i:_s-ee_n v;;e::e;em,ne;etheeeim: Court has
approp’r¢ete§xyi:? ‘orderdirecténg the petitioner
to deeiosit the ‘me said depesit is
required t<5"'er§se.re tfiaf"£he resuit of the decree wouid
*en«ot%%ej:%;i:aer:c1 m,;mmey the withdrawef gr me amount by
the. u;:'}e'1.rv;if'L*–i.::;i;r's'§:"aVi=\,Vflit £5 therefere just and necessary that
€he*–4._'an:1eu§tV'Lin-depesit in the suit is in safe custody
t.b'e–:(2eert and that the decree is satisfied.
oglx,—-~
For the aforesaid reascns, the Writ F7etiti<}vnV_:'-i§§i~.V_
dismisaed.
Cin request the petitioner is pnirmittefii
with the ordar within a pericd ofl’-8 é5:eék§’~.ffcf;j
date of receipt of a copy of thViis..:§$r<§gr.A"" .
rsk iiii