Sri V Ramappa S/O Venkatesh Nayaka vs Sri K Krishnappa By Lrs Smt Parvathamma on 7 August, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri V Ramappa S/O Venkatesh Nayaka vs Sri K Krishnappa By Lrs Smt Parvathamma on 7 August, 2009

Bench: Ravi Malimath

  ._ -_A._ged.'a&:_§>ut'V-6.5 years.
  _ 2.  K;ﬁé§§'e;:dran,
 n ;Aged...ébout 2? years.

  -555%. Kxeshavan,

IN THE HIGH ceum" 0; KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE__
DATED THIS THE ?"'""* DAY or: AUGUST, 2009  Q
% SEFORE «  u

me Ho:~z*sLE MRJUSTICE RAVI..MAL'fIhW§'¥":V1?¥."  %

 

wan' PETITION NO.15831 o?";mqQ?('VG§as--¢p{:p;  

BETWEEN: '  ' '  j

Sri V. Ramappa, 

S/o Venkatesh Nayaka V  «_

Aged about 64 years "  p_  ;

R/o Marikuppam Viiiage, H '-   '

Andersonpet P0533; 

Koiar Distrir:__t..~~   'V    , ...PETITIONER

(By Sri 1v;B.Ve{eF%;1~:>a,:vAA§Iv.§§té;e). _' 
AND: ' é   A'

Sr: K.; Krighnéppﬁﬁy Lfs 

 V'!/o~!Va'i:e §(fisshnappa,
S/9. {ate Krishnappa,

 S/9 late Krishnappa,
; Aged abaut 26 years.

 



 ti3««.=..uC::n$tit;.;'téo_n of India praying to quash the impugned
Vordeer dated ' «._2j{.).09.2OG7 on I.A.No.15 made in

'   KGF§{i€ie£':nrL1 exTure~E.

H K  '44"'V.g¥roiap4_fthi§ day, the Court made the foiiowing:-

4. Smt. K.Anusuya,
I)/0 Late Krishnappa,
Agad abeut 24 years.

5. Smt. K. Maheshwari,
me me Kﬁshnappa,
Aged about 23 years.   

6. Sri 3aganathan,
S/0 Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 21 years.

I and 4 are Resident ,of

Marikuppam Viliage,'   _    
Andersonpet Post, Be ngVarpét_V'ff'a£uk;  In  % 
Koiar District. V " . V '  '

Godietti\(ii§a'ge,;~.._...{. '  
cn;nthagamp;;m Past, r  

Krish_nng.%ri"Ta!uié2::,\   

Dhar:vmapuriV§?)_istr:i::.t. .4  .

Tamiiﬂadtnr     ' ' ...RESF'ONDENTS

2,3,5 and s:aré'rrvrr%es:d§nmfn':  in 

(By Sri K, Ma.njEmaVVth$'  '
A.N. Shivananjappa, IAd'voc"ate for R1-R6)
5f,..fhi$'r~.wi*§t 9eti£se5n"is ﬂied under Articles 226 and 227

O.$.'i%o'.287;f_1_99;6"on the 1" Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)

"}'ii&.sA'?Petition coming on for preliminary hearirfg in 'B'

My

 



9.3.25

.1 _ The petitioner's appiication filed under Orderﬁ 17 of CPC was rejected by the trial Court by * order. Hence, the present ?etition' 4'

2. Sri B.Veerappa, learned petitioner contends that the err:o'n'eous and hence interferenceVis;,g;alie§"fo.r_;': 'H'e__conterr*osAv'that no new grounds are sought be emendment is necessary in orei~-err:-to proceedings. Hence, 2n.rv**sup_pVort o¢§VV.hie.'bc.onte'nt§.on he relied on the 7 Judgment7~of"t'he in the case of RAJESH "Q3?-:ﬁP;:"§*.:4re§orted.§n'*'{2_QQ€a)4 sec 335 and also in the case "at us:-:A enmennge swnm & omens v. KIRAN APPASO swnma on-i'e%§=;é.5§Vtreportea in AIR 2007 5:: 1663. KUMAR AGAR*nfALVVV'AI§Dv"'£:$E'HERS vs. K.K.MOD1 AND Mr statement has been filed, the petitioner cannot rely onfthe decision in support of his case. In the decision 3 of RAISESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND omens \{s¢"'c!§.l<;Vi#iii§ti:r Al AND OTHERS reported in (2006):: :secl3'e_s'--«i:he Court while considering the facts involve{i._therein_ set 'V the order and allowed the app|i¢'a'«tiVon for aroVehd'ine'nt:W'i'she _ reliance by the learned cou.nsel_«"for'the r§el:ltion'er"wotild not have any application toLtneV lﬁeee The other decision relied unite...jeweleregexz KHAN AhlD OTHERS vs.' omens reported in us zoee §ie'r'aloplicatien to the facts involveclherelri. -

in View long delay in making the application for'«arr:end{::ehtVand in the absence of any valid reason as ti:e_~v_..e_rr§e:idment could not have been made at an earlier pvoihtiof time, I find no good reason to grant the K " < relief.

Q&;\e-----

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court