High Court disposed of a revision petition challenging an order restoring a civil suit. The Court found no illegality in allowing the restoration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF September 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
C.R.P. No.96 / 2013
BETWEEN :
A.Nagendra S/o late Syodhyaramaiah Setty, aged 54 years, R/at No.442, Old Madras Road, K.R.Puram, Bangalore-560016.
.. Petitioner
( By Sri R.B.Sadashivappa, Advocate )
AND :
K.Seetharama Setty, S/o Giriyappa Setty, 65 years, R/at No.52/8, Vasantha Nilaya, Near Venkateswara Touring Talkies, K.R.Puram, Bangalore.
.. Respondent
( By Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate )
This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 5.2.2013 passed in Misc.404/2007 on the file of XXXI Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
This CRP coming on for Admission his day, the Court made the following :
2
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel representing the parties.
3
find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below. It is for the parties to co-operate for early disposal of the matter as observed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional court should set aside the trial court order restoring a suit after ex parte decree.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Nagendra
K.Seetharama Setty
Huluvadi G. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
