Karnataka High Court
Smt.Jaibunnisa W/O Sayyedkarim ... vs Sayyedgouse S/O Sayyed Hassan ... on 2 September, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE OQND DAY OF' SEPTEMBER, 2009
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANN.AI' V
c.R.P.No.1o74/zoos;
BETWEEN
Smt.Jaibunnisa W / o.Sayyedkarim"Janishanavay
Age: Major, 000: Household work, _ I' *
R/o.Khadriga11i, Narayanpur Road; ,
Maiapur, Dharwad--O8. I I"
I' I A PETITIONER
(By Sri.Shardu1sab M. Muvn_avIr_a1.1i;'V.Ae1vc{ea'te§3 ---
,.
AND
1. Sayy'edgIVou.Se S/"é7g§ISay}fed hassafln Janishanavar
Age: 'Maj or,' Co; IRet'ir_ed.. KS RTC Me stri,
R/o.Kf-hadri Ga11i;fMa1apur Road,
Malapuig Dhafwad}O8";-- I
Saiyyeodmahmood S /V' o. Sayyedhasan J anishanavar
- ¢ Age: iMajor, occzvfiovernment Servant,
' DR/_o..Kiaad_1*i~--.Ga11i, Malapur Road,
I .1?»/{aia.p--'..;r", D.harwad--580008.
Z 3. AS.mt.,Iaf_iA1E:aI)egum W/o.Rajesab Nayak
I ISri.IShivasai M. Patil, Advocate.)
I Age': Major, Occ: Household work,
.. _ [R/oltiaveripeth, KantiGa11i,
V Near Kabarastan, Dharwad--08.
I ' RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 115 OF THE CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 16--07~2009, IN M.A.CASE N069/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE F'RL.DISTRIC,T JUDGE, DHARWAD,
I
DISMISSING THE APPEAL As NOT MAINTAINABLE FILED
AGAINST O.S.NO.16S/2004 ON THE FILE or THE PRL.ci\/IL
JUDGE) (so) 85 CJM, DHARWAD.
THIS CR1?' COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is calling"<in7, c;ue»stiQI:1"-:I«'tl;1<':= observations made in the order sheet in 'oo,s.N¢;,i5's./ 07-07-2009 and the dismissal appeal"'iri'.= 1\V}1:§¢;'A$ppeai"
No.69/2009 on 1e--07A200§'.~~..ia
2) The pf:tltIOnE;1"" plaintiff in O.S.No.165/ toliaintiff has completed her portiorrof matter was listed for the evidence the defendants have sought to examine DW.I2»and "O:hjection of the plaintiff is that the Irelevarrgt'sytritfiess has.._.n_Qt been examined on behalf of the defendar.1t'and;'t.h'e.._order of examination was objected to. The the Trial Court has indicated in the order ..I_I'I'_:«.V.sul91eet re~corg_r:led on 07107-2009 that the manner of exajmitiation of Witness on behalf of the defendants is at their A and the plaintiff would have to succeed on the strength his case. Against such observation made in the order sheet dated 0707-2009 the petitioner herein filed miscellaneous I appeal in No.69/2009. The Lower Appellate Court on noticing these aspects of the matter has also indicated the very same reasons and has in fact held that the observation dated 07-07-2009 is not an appealable order and there_fo.re--.i_:'the appeal has been rejected. On perusal of the orders materials along with the petition, I Sv€€""i'«.Q'€15l'OI'fi'll'1l.lil"1é5 oifder 0' passed by the Court below, so as to".Vcal.1_ii.'or iiiiiteivfe:ei{i:ce_.iiiin_ this petition.
3) Accordingly the.._."jppet;.§_tioinbeing, devoid of merit stands disposed of.._ No Consequently Misc.Civi1 l_also:_l disposed of as unnecessary.
4} Registry thlepaplers which may be sought for by the learned ccunsel "for;theipetitioner after substituting co pits ~.;=---f, that to their' cords.
sd/-
IUDGE