Karnataka High Court
D N Srinivas Reddy vs Y G Srinivasa on 23 August, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
C.R.P.NO.278/2012
BETWEEN:
1. D N SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O DODDANARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
MUTHUKADAHALLI
KAIWARA HOBLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
2. D N NARAYANASWAMY
S/O DODDANARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
MUTHUKADAHALLI
KAIWARA HOBLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
3. B N RAMESH
S/O B R NARASIMHALU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
HALEPET, CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
4. SMT KALPANA
W/O DILIPKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
DODDAPET
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
5. SMT N RAMADEVI
W/O K SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BEHIND PREMNAGAR
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
6. SMT N PUSHPAvathi
W/O NARAYANASHETTY
- 2 -
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
BEHIND PREMNAGAR
C/O K SRINIVASAMURTHY HOUSE
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
7. B VISHWANATH
S/O DR V VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
IST DIVISION, ANJANI EXTN
CHINTAMANI - 563 125
8. SUBRAMANI
S/O NAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
KATTARIGUPPE VILLAGE
AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
9. S SRINIVASA
S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
KATTARIGUPPE VILLAGE
AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
10. B NAGARAJA
S/O B VENKATARAMAIAH SETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
SONNASETTIHALLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.S SUSHEELA, ADV.)
AND:
1. Y G SRINIVASA
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
IST DIVISION, SONNASETTIHALLI
2ND CROSS, CHINTAMANI - 563 125
2. S A ANWAR PASHA
S/O C G SHAIK AHMED
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2ND CROSS, I DIVISION
- 3 -
SONNSETTIHALLI
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125
... RESPONDENTS
CRP FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 24.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S.378/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
COURT, CHINTAMANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION FILED U/O II RULE-6 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that an appeal is filed against the impugned order. The petitioner cannot be permitted to simultaneously prosecute civil revision petition as also appeal. Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE nas.