NAGARAJ v. REIKHA W/0 NAGARAJ ARER, ‘UE NTER CCC EEZFEF
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 9 r. 13
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE I 7 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ICL.MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE KGOVINDARAJULU MFA NO.21857/2011 (RES) A/W MISC, CVL104192!2011 BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O KOTEPPA ARER, AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: TEACHER, R/O SRI. DHANALAXMI BUILDING. PLOT INO. 17. 1ST MANJUNPTH COLONY SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD, APPELLANT (COMMON IN MISC.CVL.104192/2011) (Dv Sri.: P.G.MOGALJ, ADV.) AND REIKHA W/0 NAGARAJ ARER, ‘UE NTER CCC EEZFEF R1” 0 MAHARAJA C C) .L]..•E GES, MYSORE, (CO DM0 N I N Mi. SC. C VU.. I 04192/2011. nr’r tilE. (RI SD.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(d) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:01-03- 2011 PASSED IN MISC.NO.52/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED U/O.9 RULE 13 OF CPC. MISC.CVL104192/2011 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT. IS FILED FOR THIS MFA AND MISC.CVL. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ON IA THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH J., DELWERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGEMENT The legality and correctness of the dismissal of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree passed in M.C. No.74/2006 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dbarwad, dated 1/3/2011, in M.C.No. 52/2008, called in question.
Though respondent is served, she is un represented.
In the circumstances, we have heard the learned counsel for the appeilant. The respondent is (3/ D C N N ) C D C . C C < D C C L DC C )C C ) N C c D N ) C D- C L C C D C ) C ) C ) C L C N D C ) C ) C J N - . : < ) C ) C N D C C C * N C D C N ) C ) C ) N f - C : N . f ) C D C ) C D C N D C N ) C C i C C ) C . C D C N D C D C N C L C < r D C . N D C ) C N C C f C C J N J N D C C C D ) C D C C C c J N D C C ) N L C g ) N C C ) C N ) N : ) C ) C D C C ) C 0 ) C C ) C C C L C ) C . ) C ) C D C c c L C ) C E D C ) C C D C 2 L C . ) C C N C L C C C < N E D C ) C N ç D C ) C C i F D C ) ) N C D C N : D C I D r D C N D C N D C N J N D C D C ) C D C ) C C J N D C ) ) N C D C C . . : f ( t r D C C : L C D C c c ) N ) C N C D C N D C C J N D C D C N C D C D C D ) N L C c c N : C C r c < c D C L C D C D C N D C D C ) C — L C < 3 ( N D C D C D C D C 3 * r ) C D C N N ) C — C ) ) C N D C - L C + r D C E ) - D C • ) NC D C NC D D C D C D C DIN D C D N C c C c C D N L )NC C L DN C C : C C D L C C c )00c C N L C DN C C ) N CN C D c c D C L C D C DNC D C D C “ ) 1 D C ) ( ) C < 0 D C ‘ — 0 D C D C C ) C ) C g 0 0 0 ) D C D C D C + D C ) D C D C l C D C C D C : ) ) \ t — 0 D C 0 l 0 C ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D C 0 D C 0 0 0 C D C C D C D C 0 D C 0 0 D C D C 0 0 0 D C D C 0 D C 0 D C 0 D C l D C C D C o D C D C D C i D C D C D C ) 0 7 0 D C 0 D C “ 0 Q D C I ) ) C . - . 0 l C ) D C D C Q D C C l i D C D C C P D C 0 D C . D C — D C 0 0 l i C D C 0 - D C i D C D C D C C C + r T ) D C i 0 Z 0 * r D C m l C 0 i C D C . . D C D C — D C D C 0 l C , , D C D C D C 0 D C — D C 0 D C 9 D C D C P 0 D C i ) D C ± r 0 0 j r * r D ) D C _ _ _ _ P p C C p L C C D C P C C D C C D C p ) C D C D C L D C D C D C P D C o p C r C D C D C 4 P L C D C P D C ) C P - P C C D C D C L C D C ) C D C ) C D C C C p ) C ) C C ) C D C ) O G C ) C p D C C L C D C P r L C ) C D C i D C 9 ) Q L C ) C C C p L C D C P D C X P D C P L C p C C D C ) C C D C D C i D C p p ) C D C D C C 0 i D C C . p p C P C : : C p P ) C C C ) C ) C p D C L C C ) C D C ‘ p i r D C C D C C n ) C D C . D C C C p m D C D C C C Q 9 X C C p D C p * r C L C . P C C • D C i C C ) C P C C D C P C C p C P D C ) C P . P D C P D C ) C p C D C C C 9 i C + r ) C P . ) 9 P C D C t ) C b C C ) C D C C C + r p p C C ) ) 9 p D C ) C D C C C p P C C L C & L C . • ) C ) C p ) C P C C • , P ) C D C , P ) C C C r ) C C D C 9 ) C 9 D C c r . L c c o C : r 0 Q & . B S P . 0 — D C • 0 S P ‘ 0 ’ b 1 : 0 % W S ‘ D C , , . p D C I D C ‘ D C 0 . i : 0 S P : D C ’ E B ? 2 . • rR O 4 - ‘ 0 £ 4 0 00 0 . 4 : 1 ‘ t I ’ 0
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 9 r. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 17 Nov 2011. The bench was ICL MANJUNATH, KGOVINDARAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.