Miss Rejina Rebello vs Francis Kutinha on 22 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Miss Rejina Rebello vs Francis Kutinha on 22 November, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 'H

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OE NOVEMBER, 2010,f_]--.._"_i~~._V

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN__lJ..C3QPAL_--A"'GGWDA:  A  A

WRIT PETITION Nos.25148-26149320103(GrM_%Céici 

BETWEEN:

Miss Rejina Rebeilo

D/o.Late Gregory Rebeilo

Aged about 60 years

D.No.2~43, Pernal Post -- V g
Piiar Viliage, Via Shirva= V  - 
Udupi Taluk & Distrir:t'."««T._A_'--  »

__ 2  ___  _ u ...PETITIONER
(By Sri S.VishwajVith $h;;;¢;y'; W-;) ..   

AND

1. Francis Kuitisriha ' % . _ 
S/o.L_ate Agastin K.u=tin'i1a 
 Agedsabout 51 years. V

 ii"-"ranch-s_Ig.na.tvi'uS D'Souza
 .5/QE._Late"«i,azaruSj..a1ias
Ladrur D"S.'§'uza~, 
Ageci about 6.2T yea rs.

 "-Both are residing at
~,D.No4.2-43, Pernai Post
  Filarifillage, Via Shirva
.  Udugéi Taluk & District.



3. Eiizabeth Lucy Nazareth
Age, major.

4. Pascal Atan Nazareth
Age, Major.

5. John Anthony Mohan
Nazareth, Age, Major.
Respondents 3 to S are represented
By this Power of Attorney Holder
Mrs.Philomena Marie Nazareth.

Respondent No.3 is widow,

Respondents 4 and 5 are the  _ -- _ --

Son of fate Pasca! Ambrose N'a._zareti-'I, , . V' ''

Major, r/at No.2, Ware road, H   , he '

Frazer Town,   '

Bangalore -- 560 005,   A  '  '
   ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri Nataraj'a**'E»a;il:«3!h,  for -R2)  

THESE WRIT RETITIjo.NS.VARETILEO UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTIONpOF.,,IN-.OIA,*~_.pRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 11.08.2010,(A.NN'E_xuRE~A'; MADE ON I.A.NO.38 & 39 IN
O.S.NO.12/1999 av TH_E COURT OF CIVIL 3UDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
UDUPI. '  
2 YHESE R_EII'rION,S COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'8' GROUP,T':--v:IS'--vr;AY,~TH'*E COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:--

ORDER

petitiioner is the piaintiff and the respondents are the A'.'ii'defendaiwtsjfin O.S.12/99 pending on the fife of Senior Civi! Ergo-g,e_,,_L§dupi. Petitioner adduced and closed his side of evidence /"

{ on 24.99.07. The suit was posted for defendants' evidence on 8.10.07 and the defendants have adduced their side of evidence. Petitioner had fiied I.As. 35 and 36 to re-open the examine two witnesses. The reiief in the applications-h.avi_ing' been granted, the petitioner filed w.Ps;'.;E:'s9..:'».anofi:a9V277'ei'. 2010. The same were dismissed as,withd'ra,wn on memo piaced on record, entitiin'g:°'ithe p'etit'iion:er"i_tVoV file applications in future if so advised_."a'nd -iii fr-'5,t €VéTiti'AV1ih€ Trial Court: to consider the same in accor'd,a'ncVe _.w:ith',;'!a_\is_.' including the maintainability.

2. ._'3i3and 39 i.e., to reopen the case and to proposed witnesses. The appIications'ha.\/inig oihjecztied, the Triai Court, finding the to"2:be"devoiVdvVo'fAmerit, passed an order of dismissal. Aggr'ie~y;é£i~,"» fiied these writ petitions.

3. After'-,2A«i'arguing the matter for some time, Sri Sheiity, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner, 0"'«_xfiie'd._"a,_V'memo and submitted that, the petitioner may be pe:rmit.ted to withdraw the writ petitions with iiberty being / ...o

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court