Sri A C Prem Kumar vs Smt T Lakshmi on 16 March, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A C Prem Kumar vs Smt T Lakshmi on 16 March, 2009

Bench: B.S.Patil

 V 'V11QticeAOn  appiications ﬁled under Oréer 1 Rule 10
W  Qrjdcz;  Rule 1 CPO is challenged by the defendant --

 j;:$fiiii<i::3£:1%*'he1ve:in in this Writ petition.

 '    " The case of the petitioner is that similar application was

 under Order 33 R1113 1 CFC seeldng permission to

1" Floor, 6*" Cross,
4'31 Main Road, S.R.Nagar,
Bangalore ~---- 560 027.

3. Sri. Sunesh alias Suri,
Major in age,
Working withlvl/S. Gokuldas   
Exports, No.70, Mission Road,  _   *    '
Bangalore «--- 560 02?.   ~ RETs:§*O1ID;1i:xz:*i*s '*vT.i

(By Sri (lvenkatesh, Adv. for
Sri R.Tha,re:sha, Adv. for R»; 82:. 2)

This Writ Petition is ﬁ1$:£.m:1de.t A1'i:i<§£es"§?26 «Sr; 227 of the
Constitution of Eadia "prayfing  $t§t" a:3idé=' the onicrr dated
18.02.2009 in 0.8, N{;;"2.S55','. 20.02 (A:mexureiL) by allowing the
application of the gietjﬁoﬂcr (I}'ﬁfe:1dé)11t._:f§Q.'I) (5.) under Onier 33
Rule 1, (ii) An.,app!;icaticn«.Vu1:dcr"O1ti£r 1 Ruic 10 and also
dinecting iss,ua1'3._c_e*of Iii;'£:1ee"to the pmpﬁsed defendants and etc.

'I'11is Pet_iﬁo11   Hearing' this day,

the Court madgéthe fallotaéingf  '
1' Qﬁban
   13.02.2009 passed by the 39111 Additional

cit5r'~.%;::ss,§:1T';1é:d.ge,%'%,J'Vv-zaéngaiore, in 0.S.No.2555/ 2902, orticxtiug

 



..3_.

prosecute the suit as an indigent person by the 

respondents herein and by a detaiied onier dateti

{he appiication made was rejected and therefo_ze*-- ' appiication for the same relief on the _ have been entertained and the Cami: below not V issuing notice to the defentiant on appLr;atEo11.

3. I have heaxﬁ the Sri Nanjunda Reddy appearing for the peﬁﬁoneif Trial Court and Sri Venkateéah, ap}i>earing for the A

4. A 09.01.2009 discloses that piaintiﬁ'~respondent._ no. had filed a similar application zgjndersgs Rake eeeldng permission to prosecute the suit _a§ by exempting him ﬁom payment of {3ourt £ee"%of vReV.:$s?:125/». The said application came to he gejeeted although on the ground among others that the p1ai;:1t;iff~ no.1 herein had. not made the State Government as of; the paxty defendants the proeeedings and that the Apiandatozy requirement of Order 33 were not eompiied with. 'The Court below has also observed while disposing of the said application that the piaintiﬁe ﬁailed to establish at that stage %"

7. The only comse open for the 1" respo1::dent~plai:;1tiff . 13to chaklonge the order datrzzﬁ. 89.01.2009 by pzefc1Iing_.;{iti _ He: cannot ﬁlo another appiication stroking the A as: u long as the said order dated 09.O}».2%S§,A:ho1€iéA.§§;oor}%..: " A

8. Réttservizrlg iiberty to tho to " V chaﬁcnge the sajé order, 33-eifi%!?;iAon 'desorvmis to be ailowcé. Hence, the writ _ _'I'};-ac ﬁmpugned order issuing notioe to :"ﬂie* the applioaﬁons Order 1 Rule 10 CFC is set a$i(je."'~ g~;nerﬁ¢.n:¢pﬁo;1s are left open. Sd/'9 Iudgﬁ 9I%:S.__

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court