A AHALYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Memo is filed by Sri S. Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to retire from the case. In the memo the Counsel has wrongly stated thus. "The petitioner may be permitted to retire from the case". The petitioner cannot be permitted to retire from the case as sought in the memo. Only the Counsel may be permitted. Since the petitioner is represented by another Counsel, Sri S. Vasanth Madhav is permitted to retire from the case.

(2.) Though in the writ petition the petitioner prayed to declare the order dated 16-8-1975 as illegal, subsequently an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is filed seeking amendment of the writ petition and to add additional prayer. In the additional prayer the petitioner is seeking to quash the order at Annexure-P, dated 30-4-1975 passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence, the amendment application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner shall file amended petition in two weeks.

(3.) The writ petition cannot be entertained and liable to be dismissed for the following reasons.