High Court Karnataka High Court

Zerina Begaum vs P Basha Sab on 16 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Zerina Begaum vs P Basha Sab on 16 November, 2009
Author: H.Billappa
1 .

(By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER}   T.

BEFORE 

THE HONTBLE MR.JUs'i:1cE-HQBIELALAPPA'  

wp. N0. 5247*/2__007 '(G.«M'--cPCA)~""'7  

Between:

ZERINA BEGAUM"'~._ _  _ ~
D/O LATE KAREEMTSEABE? 
AGED ABOUT 45wY_Rs_ '
R/O X1 WARD, TAKKA:
HOSPET 5;8£3'20"?-_ ' '
BEJLL-Am     

' 1} H TCHPETITIONER

AND 'A

as BASI{_}\ S3528  '

s*,I<:) P NANNE SAB

C  R/()"T--DOOR NU159/A

_(..)L..D.4D'QOR NO 269,

H  A. _"'vt_; 'wAAR£;., TAKKA STREET
A PfO_S.1?ET'583201

H_OS?_ET TALUK

" JJTECEASED BY LEGAL HEIRS

SM'? MEHABOOI3 BEE

W/O LATE P P BASHU SAB
AGECI) ABOUT 55 YRS

SENECURE, R/O DOOR NO159/A



6TH WARD, TAKKA STREET
HOSPET 583201

SMT KAMMARUN BEE
w/0 NAZIR SAB

D /0 LATE P BASHU

38 YRS, I-IOUSEWIFE J
%?./O MARIAMMANA HALLI 
HOSPET TALUK 583201 '

1(C) SMT AKTAR BEE

NE}

_HOSr§Efr 58:39.0 

w/0 N IQBAL  
D/O LATE P BASHA SAB 
35 YRS, HOUSEWIFE  - 
R/O HOSPET 583201   "

PRAJASAB A ._ V.  2 
S/0 LATE PBASHA SAB  ' "
AGED iAB<;;?-Ur .34-«YRS  _ "
PR1\;AT'Lf_ E:M'£§LO4YE_E*',~._R;'Q'N0_ 159 /A
(am VWAZRLD, TAKKA~ST._REET

'=Lx'UM 1~"vA*'f-i%I'ii\/iA»SE3'V"  h  = '

D10 LA'1"3P.j,BA'S}§_A'«SAB
AGE.,D3_4 YRS1 " 

_ 'R/0 13 M.) .159/A,"'WARD

I-I'OSPET"'S8,3H2O&J

i§;iJN.r BASHEERA

, "/'"o"1,,A'rE p BASHA SAB

. AG-ED 3f3"YRS

12/ o':_D;"No 159/A, TAKKA STREET
_;~;:0SP~ET 583201  RESPONDENTS

AA (By HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV FOR

R§«{‘.A} 85 (C) TO (F);

‘..v”S§«i;<v1cE ON 121(3) HELD SUFFECEENT)

{WELLS

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8; 2._2ii'7._OE«"
THE) CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASI:I'[T_HE

IWUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CI1_vj"II;'~;3_LI..1j3_cs«.i"a'_,_,"«%_
IJRDN 82; JMF'C., I-IOSPET, IN M.C.NO~;.i1."/2O00e- OT,' '

18.1 1.2006 VIBE ANNEXURE–A.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PI2E1iIfIv1iiNARY’~-I§IE'{II3III;Oi
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE ‘COuRT’_..iIvI~AD.E:

FOLLOVVINGI»
O Rij’ _

In this writ petitien $27 of the
Constitution of India, question, the
OWL’-I’ dat€d2_”1i5i*A:’1:Iii”f2CiiQ6,€ ‘th.e3Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)
and .1

iflfivjyvthiieiifi-fl A the Trial Court has
I'(i_i(.”(.’:t€d the by the petitioner under Order
Ex Vf_i\’§_I1e 151 of CPC praying to restore

::.2’§_}f}’i~ %?L_RC petit.ioh’.’ ” ***** ~ ”

1 “v.,f3:”_.”,]5I’lFA,”::iiiZ’–Tc31″1’1E3(Z1 counsel for the reSpondents–1(a] and

.i{(:ti)i”‘1i.(.} (I) that the impugned Order is appealable

and ..Ihe_ref0re, the writ petition cannot be entertained.

4. I find Considerable force in the submission of the

‘V’§§t:?a1’_i”i]€d counsel for the reSpondents–1(a) and (C) to (f). The

H im;>I.igned Orcier is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1((:)

of CPC and therefore, the writ petition cannot be

en Lertained.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed,A”=

:’L’:’s(“r’vir1g liberty to the petitioner to pursue; .the_ rerr1edyW:*

available in law.

./”ta; ‘ ‘-

°”*:»’>;§ as.

K3 ‘L-a,

‘§$eaEfVf’