IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(}AigCfl€E:.' DA'1'E£) THIS '1'I~iE 2ND DAY 09 .mNE, 12969 V T; « BEF0RE~pm 'i'E~iE HONBLE MR.JUs'I*1jcE 2 " WRIT PETITION 950.7925 §:fé:;2£2Q7(Gi»§'§T§:P<:}*: }3E3T'W}i'3EN' : 1.
T.S.Dayai18I}{iQ,«« :’* 3;
[SiI1{3€ c1eC¢.asc§da1’py ~_ [2 V
3. ”
W/0.15. M.Laks_hII§’ik8n’Eh’ _
D] 0.L’ate-T. ._ ‘
Aged abotuzt 35 y€£'{1″$
N0. 1 (£1) re$idi$’1g.a;t A
Hengmaiiki, SiI1dh¥.lVf~1di Post
,. _ ;s;:a’5g’1a§§dde ‘Hobfig. ….. ..
% AND:
‘ ” ‘ PETITIQNERS
(Bf;541*:.T.’i%I; ‘:?iag%:é:vendra Rae, Advocate}
I 1}} Rae
” _ afs/.5-..La1:e M.KI’ishI1a Rae, Major
% % :§w.saraswa1:hi @ Brit saraswathi
W/o.M.K.PLittu Rae, Major
Both (1) and (2) am residing at,
Hemmakki, Sixlcihuvadi Post
Mandagadde Hobii,
‘I’1:1irtha11iTa1uk …:..:2rEsPQ’:§eI§gii::§*I’:%.§%’: V
(By Sri Girish Kodgi, Advecate {qr R 1%;
__ This Writ Petition is filed ‘wider Arf.i(;:1c$[ 26
227 of the Constitution f india praying to” sail for the
records from the of ,€’1’i<=;* Q Ci1?i].. Judge(Jr.Dn)
Thinzhahaili in OS No.7"5f99'._ aagxd "qtzash the urdar
passed by the Civil Judg_Wi:1g:~»
A1: jut”: :£’é{1:1.g§st..(§f the counsels the matter is
V’ ” ‘2-:21; 1131+ rum di§pds’a:.
:’r_1e’sVfij{c31;:1dtant’$ appkimuon filed under Section
of E*¢t;3i$;ATaii0w*6d by the ma} Court by sttrikzhg
” ” ‘: {3;9V$i’2’1i1 ;t11e..2z{i;ditiona1 WI’ifl;€I1 statement $3″ the petitioner
Qxggieved by the said order, the ciefeimiant has;
VT njfiicd-ihe present petititm.
o/A.»
Court in the case of BABULAL N.SI~iU’i$§§g;5§”V”-‘.,
JESHANKAR »N.SHUKLA reportad in %§1§;*rié’ ”
CALCUTTA 494.
6. On hearing both the “of.
considered View 313: the fifi
additional written statetziexgt “1’t*j€ctf’;’d for
the foilowing reasons: ” ‘ ‘ ” ‘
I} The prqvi;§_’qi’1s anumerates
the strike out or
amend be done when the
pieadings vscandaious, frivolous GI’
vcxatiou-3 or vifl:i_Ci1-is cioné: to prejuciice, embarrass or
éléiay fair of “£jf1’é’ suit or which is otherwise an
a”§:.s11’S.’:§- “V’p1’§r’,3cess of the Court. None 0f the
c0:1d’itio11$_’»’£:x$” .’sffip1;Iatc<i uxttdar Order 6 Rule 16 wouid
" " "'s't;énd;Lati:I'a§:ted i'I1 the §I'6S€I}'£ case. The only fizxciing of
Court is that the additionai written statement
fl\……,
requires to be struck off since the same is "
concerned to the decision of the matter in die13L1£e.' _
2) The reasoning adopted ” :7:
relying 0:1 the provisiorzs of Rifle 905$’ fie
made only when any 0Iv1e_'()f aenvumerated
under Order 6 Rule 16 erroneous’
The trial Court in allowing
the said eff the pleadings.
Further its “t}ie””defen&ants who have
been izne1ead.ed of the deceased
defendants ‘have .3;-. law te fiie the written
3 vS’f,$3.tt’:1i§1 t:i’I1i,;eN(3′{ZWit}Ei$téii’1€lii1g iihe fact that they step into:
defendant they are entitled in
_ 1aw’tQ:1Eak¢ defence that are admissible.
_ jFo£’v~,_.A:V’t.i”1e aforesaid reasons, the erder dated
A vide Annexure-A passed on I.A.No.XIV in
*€}..S:N’0.75/1999 by the leamezi Civii Judfge (Junior
W
Divisiorl} and JMFC, Th , is many set a.side;~._ ‘~. _ ~._
The trial com: is directed ta take 013 recor§fl:h5ej’J
additional WI’itt(3I1 statement filed bjs_~’»..»1:]i_14e
. herein and proceed to dispose ofi’ the sigit A
with Law.
Writ petition is disp0sé§_i”‘:xfT _
lsk