Karnataka High Court
Malakappa vs Annapurna on 15 December, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
3 R.F.A. IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DT.19.01.2_OO7:"=.PASSED'I1\I.V os.No. 15/2003 oN THE FILE DE. THE _CIiVIL JuD'oE 3 " (SR.DN.) MUDDEBIHAL, DECREEINC; THE"--SUIT EQR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POS'S_E'S_SION;' -. 2 This appeal coming D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR J .,Hd'elivered thefollowing This appeal under. is directed against 19.1.2007 passed in Judge (Senior DiVn.), Mudd'e'bi!1alV,V suit for partition and separate possessionpl _ V In fag:t, "" "appeal should have been dismissed look, as it is not an appeal in the eye of law; partiloularly the contents of the memorandum of pappealhaving no relationship / proximity to the judgment rundler appeal, which is sought to be challenged in thy' l 2 .-appeal. 4 3. Sri Sri Shivakumar S.Badwadagi,'"learned!cpounlselb for the appellant, by engrafting:"another'lb T. appeal said to be relevant to thejudgmentjunder seeks to make the presentllyalppeal such purpose, has placQ¢ia'~~.};,ef()_"rlell:_ copy of the memorandum of and description in the being the seune, but the the memorandum of appeal' very judgment under appeal' 4' _ 4. .vp_Harsvhava«rdhan R.Malipatil, learned counsel L' the respondent, had earlier pointed out this
hloomerpiiigtldie appeal, which would have gone unnoticed unless vlve had ourselves looked into it. Hence, we had to efforts to secure the counsel who had prepared and 'tiled the appeal and in response to it, learned counsel for the appellant having made amends for the earlier mistake, and Sri Harshavardhan R.Malipatil very