Poojari Kalaiah vs Basavegowda on 24 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Poojari Kalaiah vs Basavegowda on 24 March, 2011

E
INT}§§HHHiCOURT(K?KARNAIAKAJ¥FBANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY 01? MARCH 2o1'i----,T

BEFORE

THE IiON"BLE MR JUSTICE K N KEsHAvA;§3;mg§Y9ArqA 

REVIEEW PETITION N9: 10 /2&1-1.. .. 

ALON'G'WT'_1_'}_i   -V
MISC. CIVIL 56?3/30151"  . '

BETWEEN:

1. POOJARI KALAIAH,  _
s/0. CHIKABASAVEGOXMDA~,--. "
AGED ABOUT 78_Y~~:§:A12:s.  V  ..

2. :?OQJAR'1'i31Q_DL>AB;§s;wA:A%i.
Zvs/0.'Pc1QJA:g1 KA'L;_x1AI«1,.
xgersa ABC: :Ej.Té.l_2 'Y;;:A.Rs;

£30133 A§aEi--R} »Ki:?RUBANA1<0PPALU VILLAGE),

_ 1BEvU:<;A'1,DAKLE,"DUDDA HUBLI,
, MANIJYAAWALUKV AND DISTRICT.

. . .P}3'I'§'i'I ONE'§{S IN

R.P.NO.iO/1.1. AE\5I)
:"v'IISC.CVI,,E\50.5€37.'3/ 1%

{:3}f*'sRI..% S;  KULKARNI, AEDVOCATE)

 AND-. ;

A 5]'  BASA\fEGC)W'DA.

 Sfﬂ. SANNAIALH.

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
KURU§3A?§AKOPTPALU VILLAGE,
:E3E:VUI'§_z'-XL I3AE{LE, DUDSA HUEBLE.
Ti2'§ANI}YA "§Y%.l,,U}{ ;'~§E'.'€1} §_)ES'E'R.§C'"R
§3EF~E~5'?'i 40.1.

 



R! O. E<1a'iRAE}§KOE'13';'~XE,E§,
HE-Rz'XGQE}U }'"iO§3.I.,L
EVEANIDYA 'E'ALUK AND INSTRICT.

30' JAYENDRA,

s/0 '1'HO"§'A}3PA  KAI.£§GOW'E):'«\$
AGED ABC) :31" 3:; YEARS,

R/0. BEVUKAL KOPPALU,   
EDUDEDA Helm.   ;,
MANDYA 'i'AI.SU'K AND I)IS'i'REC'I";._ *

IL 1':3ASA.VAEAH,
:3/0 I-iALLAPPAg
AGEEXTJMAJOR,   '
R/O. BEvUKA1,r__§@1>pA;LU,  ..
DUDDA HOBLI, " T ' 3' '
NIANDYA TALUK ANDIZI.
P1N«5'7I 4&1,  "

f _ '5i":§§Ic:T . "  ~ . 

12. K A1¢A.._%1AH4,  ~  1

is/0. ' }-LAVLAPEPA, _ 

AGED MAJOR;    '
R--,?0;-- BEVUKA§,, KQF>P./KLU,
DU'D,DA._HoBL1. = "-

V _ 'VMANDYA TALUK AND DESTRICT.
'  "- A..RESPON1')E"3N'§'S IN
PE'I'I'I"ION 8; MISC
c':v1J.No.§573;; 2

   *   PETI"i'EON IS FILED UNDER SECTION

.'§A14.~'REA£3L'----WT1'I'1}{ ORDER 4?' RULES .1. OF' C.P.C. PRAYING

.;«'r;3~.E. R§s:v1_Ej1A,? OF 'm:«: ORDER DATED .12.; 125110 PASSEED
IN I{.sA.;No'.589/200? [DEC & INJ) ON THE: 1;"11.§:: OF THE

 I""'IOE\}'I:$.T,-73; HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

 TI"--HS MISC.CVL<N<>.5678/ZOEE IS FTEJEEID UE\§DER

" gSE2(3"T'ION 5 OF' '{'}-{E LEMI'TA'FiON ACT; PR./XYIE\§G THAT

'1?.f~HS E-iON'BLE' COURT £3?-3 PLEASED TO CGNDGNE 8

   -SAYS DELAY IN FILING TI'i.E:f- A£"3C)'\?E'; FQEZXFEEEW PETITION.

'mg EQESVEZKK' P£<:'}7'i'.I'IG?<+J ALO?\1G 1.-wr§:»~:
.?\/§§${:e{::'§%"?"£.x'»?'§{)-$@?:§;;/BE)31. COMING 902% OE5{I3£:1R$ om
"$33 13.935, T}-§.E.*Z c(>a§:2;'1'- M,;r::;>2s:; T;-IE: F'OLL®E?%»'ENG:

2 ' a/"'1'



 B E R
Heayd Srie SAP. Kulkarni, learned e::)u:'1sei
appearmg for the petitioraerss. Theugh the delay in ﬁling

the Review P€i".i{',iO3'.1 is ha;:d£y eabeut eight daye, ssirnire on

hearing the iearned counsel I did not find 

for review, there is no need for issue of :.'iQtiee=.t€) the 7

respondents on the app1i£1aiiOﬂj.fi1€d4fC§}f"«COIf1Ci§§I1£j.TjV(jI1h of

delay. This Court while dismissi-n.g"i;he Re'g'.;u}étz*"Seee'nci'=, Appeal filed by the petiti0nevi*e».:f.ierein ail the center:t,i€jﬁs.._ferrged_ 'V21-f_1C}. has recorded a finding that the appeal dr:;ee':_LjV' .x1'(:s¥:_&_T 'im7oIve any question of law muchleseSubstantigai' 'q.tiest;i0n 01' law, more so, in View of ,. '£earned=._eounse1 appearing for the peti1i_io11ers §1§§f€iI1E;'!. 'b€gfOf€ the Lox:-V621" Appeliate Ceurt had made a :'~§3eTc;:}.fi:<:«._eLib2?§§ies3i{>z1 {:0 the effect: that the peiiiienere ﬁe '1_3c:Et-.waV1'1£;7."::..}:i§;:ei.:1t111em: of Commissioner and that they vaciéee sr;£t.is:'fieCE wiih the additioilai evicienee, whieh they had iaﬁfeady Eezi befere the Lgxwer Appeiiauxé Ceurt in §):°<i{3f ef EXSP4 ééz P5.

L1;

Hzwixxgj ':'r3gard to the faliifﬁi zmd c:ir{éz;n1$t;1:r1(:es, of ihig (235965, I find my grmxrzd {:0 r;%3:11';€rt.ain this revisiw petii:ion. Therefore, the review petition 213 well 'é},é;»T.the app1iCa1::i()n- Misc. Civil 5673/201.1. filed far' Gf dtéiay are 1"€j€C§j('3C3.

KGR""'

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Poojari Kalaiah vs Basavegowda on 24 March, 2011