IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 18'1"" DAY OF FEBRUARY.
BEFORE J
THE HoN*B;:,r: MR. JUSTICE AJIT 'A "
WRIT PETITION No.s3974
BETWEEN:
Suclnayani W/0 Ba1aji'w _
(D/0 Pandharinath) V V
Age: 23 years. C-CC: Agri' ."
& Householdgafflaifs.
R/0 Hangarga Vi11.a.gje;' Auradf.' V .
Dist. Bidaf, »
____ E' Petitioner
(By Guruxééjv K'é;1r,:1:§:"eri'. Advocate)
AND . E E % E A
_ 1. P2§q:1ud11arineith.VE/ofilagamurtlly
A ":3uta'r. Age: 65 ye'a1~s, Occ: Agri
' 0._Koreka1_, Tq. Aurad,
.;Dist::'E$jda;1a_.}
2. '€:_ha$}'rif§:t1éi W/0 Pandharinath Sutar.
E Age:'6O years. Occ: Household affairs,
_ VTR/0*K'0reka1. Tq. Aurad. Dist. Bidar.
E' "B§émdeppe1 S / 0 Nagamurthy Sutar
ix.)
Age: 45 years, Oce: Agri.
R/0 Korekal. Tq. Aurad.
Dist: Bidar.
4. Ram S / 0 Nagamurthy Sutar
Age: 35 years. Oec: Agri.
R/0 K0reka1Tq. Aurad,
Dist: Bidar.
5. Jagadevi W/ 0 Pandharinath
Age: 55 years, Oee: I~I0use_hQ1d
R/0 Korekal Tq. Aurad. " "
Dist: Bidar.
V 'A Respondents
[By Sri. K.M. Ghate. Advdcaitg re;-j-R'-:i'.'. to R-5}
This Writ F'.e_ti.tieri __is_fi1e:iif;under Articles 226 and
227 of the Coiie-.titi3--tiQfi'A:'.'e.f I--n.dia=, praying for quashing
the 0r_d.e1: _ An._r_1eXfure--F and allow the
I.A.NO_.IX asieiprayed forftherein to delete the issues 1
and 4 in the.sV'u;it'-..at _0.~s.:\ioh.10/2009, on the file of the
Civil Jucige" {Jr.'DVr'1.]:'Aur_aEi« and etc.
.This fj'etiti0a- on for orders this day, the
_ court; made the" t.'Q1i0wi1'1g:
ORDER
H the matter is listed for orders, with
c:0r1sei”1t.it taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She questions the
order passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A_.,l_\__lo.9
which was filed by her praying to recast Issue Nos;
4. Learned ‘l’rial Judge has found that V’
recasting or deletion of those Zissu-esp
inasmuch as the pleadings
to the suit are required to said it
issues. Learned Trial’ falsto fonfndtetvhat the
first defendantb’as’Vple_aded’; statement in
Para–4 that is not maintainable
for of– member of Defendant
No.1. in 4′ so ‘ No.1 is concerned the
defenidarits averments of Para–3 of the
f if thelplaintiff has pleaded that she is the
of Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
l _ This”—-faC–_t: isvflalso objected by Defendant No.1. Hence the
required to prove Issue No.1. Having regard
.l fot.hel fact that the learned Trial Judge has exercised his
fix
L§€};”)rY;~V,9F’/t¢’\’2)1§/Dy)////\’//}A7//7/973-G/v)flWt\»//I.ArrV:/:4Hnnnn ., .. , .. . .. . . . . .
discretion in rejecting the appiieation and hoiding that it
is not necessary to delete these issues, I am of the View
that question 0finterfe3″er1ce with the said discret.i.dr2_ary
order does not arise.
There is no merit in the writ petiti0n.”‘«’:_:HeI_1<:;e'
Writ petition is rejected.
swk