IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAK;fi' 5 _ CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARw;m..'_i ' DATED THIS THE 18'? DAY Q.§,'gg.P"Rz,1j'2009-V. ., , 1,' BETFQRE " THE HONBLE MR JUS*i':§jE Rmfi. Sumsh Janna, " S',"':;»,_ :,1Shri;:;1ivas."§J* V. ._ Age: 35 yearfs, 'O,<:<ii:_ ,I3§uSi1:_i3_sS,z V' R10; 18*: wam, ' (By Sri Dineésh Aayacatc) Arm; V V 4' Q' 1.
sgyaizana, ‘Sin. Tqtappa Kiztmal,
. , Age éBn17£’t.58 years, Once: Advocate,
V’ R] cx. Vfiasaytvshwar Baciavane,
.,Hosp¢t, flist; Bellaxy.
S] C) Kadubagcri Chandrappa,
” Age; 38 years, Occ: Agri§.,
— _ u _R[‘_:): Wtjtavars Colony,
ifiagaribommanahsalli,
Dist: Bellary.
Shafiuiia, S10 Azamatufla,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Business,
RIG: 1*’ Ward, Kudalagi, Bisi: Bellmy.
(By Sri Laxman T.Ma11taga:t1:i, Advecate)
. .APPELLAN’I’
..RE&§PQNQEN'{‘S
$1″
This MFA is filed under Order 42 M15
against the order dated 15.9.2008 passevd~..oinVV i–.A.No.7′
().S.No.148/2002 on the file of the””i’sdd1C§ivi14J”uxi_ge ‘{SI’.b.’Il.)#:’
iiospet.
This MFA coming on for.4_ad1r1is:s1<5n
delivezed the following: V. . M 'V
JUDGMEN':
This appea} is by”~defe111iaJ;1£ :1′)’ein,g aggrieved by the
order dated 15.9=2008:,-pafseedv =-c_>&n__ by tile Add1.Civi1
Judge (Sr.
Binesh M.Ku1karm’, appearing
for the the trial Court has committed
_ eI’ror.{and~hence ‘t13.e__same (rails for interference.
% filed by the plaintiffs under Order 11 Rule 21
of C.P.C. was allowed. The ma’ 1 Court in the
. Couzfi-3e flaseing the said order came to the conclusion that the
.1,:ii..*’s:t_.4dei’ez1da13.t is guilty of eontumacious conduct or a willful
‘ éifiexxzgpt to disobey the direction of the Court. The fufiher
“”‘f11?3.c1i11g was that the contention of the éefendant is neither
bonafide I201″ reasonable. The failure to answer
W6”
3
intenogatories, has compelled the trial Court to pass the
ixnpagned older.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance
on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SC
1436 in the case of M] s. Babbar Sewing ‘Tjflolc
Nath Mahajan to contend that the defence cotfid:
off lightly as has been done in the fiageseht C
5. In the course of the slaid-.vease,A’the came
to the conclusion the defence can be
made when is giéhfumaey on the part of the
defendant or _attethp_tl the ozder of the Court.
I11 ,th.e ;;;m, th2it–ts,__e;;acfly what has been done so far as
thev”r_;on;d’t1Ct axe concerned. I find no error
a wyvy as it is a Well reasoned order.
-. For the seasons stated above, the appeal being devoid of
4jttieritsl’js.aec3Iding1y rejected. No costs.
Sd/””_”
Judge
ll’ F§£s*