Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Hassan District vs B L Chandrashekar on 21 July, 2008

Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

 AG_

 '  {B}?   _Shashid}1a,ra 35 Kesvy 85 Co, Adv]

BETWEEN

1

IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAi%';:A_V_
AT BANGALORE V   

Dated this the 215: day omuiy, 200$'  " 
BEFORE: '  V'

THE HON'BLE MR JUS"£'§CE Iixv }:§ I{irLéH1§RA  

Writ Petition No 9015'c-.f20é6»!Q§!:[eCP§}: "  

'THE MANAGENG DIRECTOR  ;   
HASSAN DISTRICT <::<:a-T<:>PE12A':"Iv;».'?:._  "
BANK LID, BANGALORE. msoras '
ROAD, HAs$AN.-57;3102  _ "  =
BY L,JA¥AR,egMV _  4_  ' 
AGED:.A1:30<I;'3*..5:2 YEAQ_s"~._V   '

THE mep.%NCH'MAN=2:;:GER--_ 
HASSAN DIS'i'i?iCT CIENTRAL
co op}3:RA--_'mrr: BANK' .. '
BANAVARA BRANCE-J '~ _ '__ 
ARASIKERE TM,u':»z5:% ,. 
573103, HASSAPI DES'I'E€--IC'F--"

BY Ski" I<;RISHN-AMI) ma?

_ B L"€.HA.NDHAsHEKAR
 s/0 B;L.I;;!NGAPPA
 , V AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
V.  » R /AT. BYRANGONDANAHALL1
- J ' 1.3';-mrag-VAR HOBLI ARASIKEEQE
  'I*.ALUK«573 :03
  massam DISTRICT

:39 A30L;T 52 YEARS'

PETITIONERS

 



3

of 2005 in terms of order dated 14-2-2006 [Arznexeure-A].

it is aggrieved by this order the present writ -4 

3. Appearing on behalf of the   
Shashidhara, learned counsel,   
Person had earlier filed a like suit,14"bntnor.1ade a
withdrawal of the suit with  to file   on'
the same cause of    ordered on
2o--3..2oo1 on Lagrv in   thereafter,

without even   the netice of the
court :;":a11"per- zfiisccnaneous No 12 of 2002,
under {Drder  "  'CPO; that the trial court

thoug'r_1_v"nit, in appeal the appellate court

 V' ~--a1}o'ééed  erroneous reason. and therefore

 to be set aside etc.

4. do  counsel for the petitioners would also

Vd*.,.,_'<submit that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the

":di'evetii_ae of the State and therefore it should be set aside

Q/o



 

4

5. Irrespective of the merits of the impugned order, 1 do

not find this is a fit case for irlterference i1j1m_exe'1'eise-«Vpf

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the  

particularly for varyirlg an  ' i;1:_ few-wjiur _the T

respondent,-pIaintifl's, permitting 'them toe'.§:revsecu':e"=';§iee'

Sui: as indigent persons. 'I'I'1e "p1_ainti1'35 t-:53 inevitably make good the court :fee'*~eve:fi git of emit and on succeeding the suit. Ne i1itei*fei_je~V'wit11 the matter. Writ; petition