Karnataka High Court
Smt K S Parvathamma vs Sri C Nagaraj on 29 August, 2008
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH court': on' KARNAT:;KA"1;_1:
mumn THIS THE 29th nay or Ewe}:-I_isT écsis - 2 "
"
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTIQE-Y.{i¢BAB§EAHIT
W.P.N0;_§983? 2{;0*?" _
BETWEEN: V
1
SM'? K
W/O ;;A3'§;..r3"V-N;;GA;§A_3~._V ' ' »
R/O NQ2;._1-,j_4 moss'; '_ E
HBSC LAYOU'3j,VV .9 'CR--OS§§ ~. , V
?1._MAIN,"?§AQARABI&AV§ ; STAGE
B}3NGALORE:'*.£2 ~ '
SR1 §i%4MUAR2iL.1i§HA3§"..%%V %
, S./O LATE BNAGARAJ
~ -QR/C3 N02/"1, .4 CROSS
" 1--I'B;:~:C'%-!,,.§AYoUT';"9 CROSS
_ ?._m31'N%,'-MAGARABHAVI I STAGE
'BANGALQ:§.E 72
SR! .3: L';%-;3'i10K
" sjo LATE B NAGARAJ
Eff,' N02/1, 4 CROSS
HBSC LAYOUT, 9 CROSS
" MAIN, NAGARABHAVI I STAGE
BANGALORE 72
SR} N NAVEENA
D /0 LATE B NAGARAJ
R10 N02/1, 4 moss
HBSC LAYOU3', 9 cmss
7 MAIN, NAGARABHAVI I STAGE
BANGALORE 72
U1
SR1 N IGRAN
S/O LATE B NAGARAJ D
R/0 N02/1, 4 CROSS
1-1330 LAYOUT, 9 moss' D A V.
7 MAIN, NAGARABHAVIISTAGE
BANGALORE '22.
(BySri: H R ANANTHAKRiS.HNA_"Nf§Jf~?1"HY&.' ASSDCIATES)
AND ;
1 SRID'C.NAGAR;%gI » _ _
S.[0CHII'~{A.P?A.@ BHADRAIAH
AGED ABo'u3:=».5e.YRs""---- '
R/ONO 15,.,PQOR'mvENKATA RAG
RQAD,_BANGAL{)RE_E>;3 RESPONDENT
t (33,; B N I>U*r*I:A;,:§1c;A1AH~F0R C/R1 )
'1'I§iIAs wk-*D1s FILED PRAYENG TO SET ASIDE THE
D.QRD§:i?.,A'1>AssaD1..£3Y THE LEARNED CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANCi;ALC'R_E OS.NO.5429/97 m*.25.:1.20o5,
UNDER THE-_. ORIGINAL OF ANN-I5: AND TO RECEIVE
A D 'rHE"':a:N*'r1R'5;'wR1'ITE:N SMTEMENT.
tbVeb £33111': m_ad€ the foiiowing:
V' " r Tliifi Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day,
ORDER
This wrii petition is filed by the defendant én O.S.No.E5429/9'7 on the file of 17*' Add1.City Civil Judge, "\g;\jL Bangalore City, wherein the Wxitten.:st£=.fe'me.t1.t"ti}e&{ defendant has been accepted 0113.3' {in ' 7]:
plaint and is rejected in mspect original in the suit o.s.No.5429;97 saga ..for..v'pf;;:§311anent ixljunction, Appficafios was rejected, same w;3:5,_.confii'taed: mvision and thereafter 7 Rule 1 C130,, to amend and possession. The said and piaint was amended. The writ §>etit':i«one1*t statement both in respect of s1;1i_t"15efoie smendmem and also in respect of the Way of amendment. The trial court order dated 23.}. 1.200'? has accepted the wxitten v_sta'_te:m:ent filed by the Writ petitioner herein-the V'-~.defen(is3qt in the suit only in respect of the subsequent in the amended plaint that is pertaining to the case V' of declaration and possession. in View of the fact that no written statement had been flied in respect of the prayer for \§\,5~= 4 pezzmanent injunction in the suit before it was amended and as the application for amendment for filing the Wri§£t3'fl statement in respect of the amended grayer is "
impugned order does not call for interference of the power of this court under _ Cozzxstitution of India. However, T. the ofdei---.i.s to" 'V efiect that written statereent is taken on reooido Thy " 3 Court which to declaration and has been got included in the pzaim by} Aec-o1jVéingfljf,~;.:.tEl:xf:";'v;v'it disposed of with the above said. _o¥;>§:;er=a'aic>J_;1s..M ._ Sd/-' Judge