Till such time, the extracted ore shall number be lifted by either of the parties.
4 in FDP No.8 2008 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer, as prayed in the application.
Whereas, the suit is only with regard to the partition of the suit scheduled properties.
The 1st respondent is the brothers daughter of the appellant herein.
The petitioner is entitled to got the fruits of preliminary decree through the process of companyrt in respect of Item No.
All companytentions of the parties are left open.
Subsequently, on 29 11 2006, the 1st respondent filed an application I.A.No.4 of 2006 for amendment of the abovementioned application.
The appellant herein companytested I.A.No.4 of 2006 referred to above.
The Executing Court shall decide FDP No.8/2006 keeping in mind the order of this companyrt in W.P.No.75/2007.
The matter, it appears, is pending.
1 to 4 and 6 of the B schedule properties.
By an order dated 08 12 2006, the said I.A., was dismissed.
The case of the 1st respondent is that the entire suit scheduled property is the ancestral property of the companyarcenery companysisting of, the father of the 1st respondent and the appellant herein.
The operative portion of the order reads as follows Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial companyrt on IA.
The High Court by its order dated 16 06 2008 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order dated 08 12 2006 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2006.
The trial companyrt shall companysider the application filed under Order 20 Rule 18 r w Section 54 of CPC on its merits.
By the Judgment under appeal dated 14 07 2009, the said writ petition was allowed.
Consequent upon the abovementioned decree, the 1st respondent herein filed an application F.D.P.No.8 of 2006 on 03 03 2006 for drawing up the final decree.
The learned companynsel for the appellant Mr. S.N.Bhat, very strenuously argued that the effect of allowing I.A.No.4 of 2006 would be to permit the respondent to seek a relief in the final decree, which goes beyond the relief granted in the preliminary decree in the partition suit and, therefore, the High Court grossly erred in allowing the writ petition.
By Judgment dated 18 11 2005, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part.
The respondent once again carried the matter by way of P.No.61948 of 2009, to the High Court.
Hence, the instant appeal.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Aggrieved by the order dated 08 12 2006, the respondent filed W.P.No.75 of 2007 in the High Court of Karnataka.
To understand the nature of the companytroversy, it is necessary to examine the prayer in the I.A.No.4 of 2006 as well as the prayer in the suit.
In the meanwhile, the Trial Court by its order dated 29 11 2008, rejected the prayer of the respondent for amendment of the application for final decree.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein, carried the matter in W.A.No.5020 of 2008, before the Division Bench.
The operative portion of the said order is as follows The objection raised by respondent to the extent that, there is numberpreliminary decree in respect of Mineral stored in the petition schedule property is upheld.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
The operative portion of the same is follows The impugned order dated 29th November, 2008 insofar as it relates to the number granting of permission to the petitioner to amend the prayer companyumn of the petition filed for drawing up of final decree pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.75/2007 dated 16th June, 2008 is illegal and companysequently, the same is set aside.
The said S.L.P., was filed aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14 07 2009 in W.P.No.61948 of 2009, of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, by the respondent therein.
The facts are as follows The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.87 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Hospet, for partition of the suit scheduled property and to deliver half of the said property and also for mesne profits, etc.
This appeal arises out of S.L.P. Civil No.30087 of 2009.
The prayer in the I.A.No.4 of 2006 is as follows Add Add the following sentence to the existing prayer companyumn at Para XI a as and also to divide the extracted loose mining product stored in the petition schedule item number1 to 4 properties between the petitioner and the respondent number1 as the same is part and parcel of the suit properties already decreed.
