Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anasuya vs Sri. J. Venkatesh on 3 June, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.14051 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANASUYA
W/O SRI PRAVARDHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.153/33, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 021. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.Y. KUMBAR, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. J. VENKATESH
S/O JANARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5/46,
PIPELINE ROAD,
CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BANGALORE-58. ...RESPONDENT
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the order dt.8.3.2013 on I.A.No.4 in
S.C.No.1474/2011 passed by the learned 11th Addl. Judge
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore vide Annx-A and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following
2
ORDER
Petitioner who is plaintiff in S.C.No.1474/2011 on the file of the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 8.3.2013 at Annexure-A passed on IA No.4 filed in the above said suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the evidence of DW-1 was adduced and a gift deed got marked as Ex.D13, plaintiff and learned counsel for the plaintiff were not present and the document was marked in their absence by levying duty and penalty of Rs.8,800/-. He submits that as the document at Ex.D13 is forged, the gift deed is insufficiently stamped, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to the respondent - defendant to pay duty and penalty of Rs.12,93,600/- on the alleged gift deed dated 9.9.2008, but the Trial Court erred in rejecting the same following the decisions reported in 2000(4) Kar.L.J.55 and ILR 2007 KAR 2786.
3. The Trial Court has rightly held that once the document is admitted in evidence even wrongly, such 3 admission becomes final and cannot be called in question at a later stage. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV