Sri Francis Rebello vs Smt K Vimala on 17 June, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Francis Rebello vs Smt K Vimala on 17 June, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT 012* KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY 01:' JUNE 2016-.E

BEFORE «

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  

WRIT PETITION No. 177000? 2c€1j(1J:,".i(:'}i'\rI_~f:I¥CJ  

BETWEEN :

SR1. FRANCIS REIi3ELLQ;"'~~._%
S /0 SEBESTAIN REBEI.;I;.Q; _
AGED ABOUT 6,-9 YEARS, _  "
RESIDING AT B.E'HINI.)  I 
KJSHORE AUToN1'OB11',,E:":*» 
KANNURVv1I.I.AQI;,"  _ j' 
POST PADEL, M;ANG:x;.QR«I:E;--.V 

       ...PETm0NER
[By:.S1'i" Sai~a:11';i11"E3_.: :'A..c1v*...L]  V .

AND:_.. _    
 SMT.yf;NI.AI.A,*~«.__ _ _
aw'/Q  K'R~:..SI--I.NA9_P2«I?
A(}I~3:_MA-.j_O-R;--  " 
R/AT AN NEW R I;_1.!:)IJsE:.
5 1. AIIAP£':,\[1I,I;AG-E.
 V 1M.ANGALoRE_«;v 575 007.
   ...RE3SPONI)ENT
 P€i,1'UO1'1 is filed under A1"{,iC1(-IS 226 AND 227

'~ :  the.CrgVI1&:ﬁ~E.'1;I'E.ion of I1'1dia prayirag to quash the order dated
'.24';O5.20'1'€1?'on. IA N0.IX in OS 838/2008 passed by the

1e«:<11'r1¢d' Civil Judge (Jr. I.)'n.)., M'21r1g2I1()re, thereby rejectiirlg
E1119 saizi LA filed by H10 pet.it,i0neI' under Order 26 Rule 1 and

 AA 2 r/'w'. Sectiﬂicm 15E of CPC. Vida AnnexL1re--A. and

(5GI1seqL1eI1£:]y a.1.I0w the IA NOJX filed by the petiitioner in OS

 V' NCX838/2008 mlciex' Order 26 Rule I and 2 r/w SE'.CU()ﬂ "E51
 o{CI¥'C before {.11{';' lc-.a1'1Ie<i Civil Judge {J 1'. D31.) 'Mz11Iga=d()re.

 



F.)

"F1118 petition coming on for pre1imi1'12:1ry hearing
this day. the Court made the f<)1}mvi1'1g:

ORDER

This writ. petition is directed ag21in.g;sE-- t41je~'§'0rc:'ie.r dated 24~5~2o10 on 17.._A;ne.:x: "

O.S.No.838/2008 by the Mangalore whereunder the"

defendant under Q:-eIe1- 2ee"'RrL::ee-.;_ ara1d'"2~1;ead mth Section 151 has been

2. The le_ad§in.g tovikfrit, petition are as

1. A ve?;uL':'z'fjt4-».jh.C);SLE\Jo.838/2008 has been filed by the res;v5<54-:.1_ £:1er11.;.' here"in:_"..'age1i11st. the peliitioner and other r(f{S}3oEr1de11tS é'e«e.k.i.11g vacant. p0ss3essi011 of the piaim. V »'F§e11.e<1u:_le: 'pf0--pert.y and for payment. of damages. The dei'endar1t"2_see';}1_ave entered appeara1'1ee and have filed w1'itt"eri:. stat.emer1t. and eontroverted the plaint V' '-- '_ e.ave.rments. $( (1 as contended in this writ pet:it.ion 1'1()thirig_§ pifeverited the said witness to produce the medical rrertziﬁczite of the doctor and exhibit. his in1mobi}ity_ [iii] The contentions raised in the pi-esent*<.pwifit petition were also the contentions raised be:f'ore.sthee"itria1 Court which has been (:()1'1sidered "by the _.1-rial couirt in extenso and trial Court has detailed orc1_er,by_V assigning specific reasons 'f7or'-snot. ac-cepiisirigithettprayerV made by the writ peti'it~i_()nerh'an'd:'jreiectiiig the 'request. for appointment of Commissioneif order being a discretionary' order it. i'iot'-reci1__t_ii1'e to be interfered since1'v--pe'tii_ione'r.'hasa.i'it(iij._V"br;§ei'1 able to demonstrate that it suffers friorn p2.1t.e11t4._eI'IiC5i's. The leéfiined' counsel for the peti.ti.oner has relied "ji:iC1gment. referred to supra whereunder the triai C_ot'1r§gii11 the said case after croiisidering the legal evid£E:nr%e on record name to a C€_)I1(",11,1Si()}1 that witness _A 'Vt_he'rei1'1 who sought. for appoiritmenli of Coznmissioizier $1,.

mi was not only aged 78 yCé:1l'.S old but was suffe1'ii1g from various ailments and bedridden. The said medical (:ert.ifieate was sertitinised by the trial CoL1r_t and aeeept.ed by it on the facts of the said ease. order of appoii'1tment._ of Commissioner was in revision t.he High Cotiitofw it interfere with the discretionary power was exercised Ont» after"

considering the med-ieol reeo'r--d.~V§HoWeVer, in the instant case as :.1'oteid5's1;1p_i"a--- the 'medical records produced {ﬂsferies does 1"1otvi'1fveﬂeeff as to the aﬂment which-._ of ise'riVtjt1's_ w1'1ieh would prevent the defe11dar1t--._V friom-_21p_}je:ariI1g before the trial Court and tr::ii'de1fi.ng_ e\ride11ee..«' HGIICC. the said judgment Cannot V =:--1pp1.ieab1e to the facts of the present case.

6..i;§€§:1r11ed counsel for the petitioner would draw st1st'eiiaI1ee from the judgrnent: of the Calleutta High _A =C_()_i;rt from paz'z1gm.1)h 11 to eonterid that in the ease of $/ appoi11t.meht: 0fC0mmissi0r1er it' is not. only the medical {evidence which require to be considered for appointment, the age factor shouki also be taken into e0r1side1'at'i0n. This aspect" has been t.2ikeii'*--,Tini.0 consideration by the trial Court: and negatived'_af1dlﬂjtlii.s Court is not inclined to take a dii'ferent:__\{1'eW' ilie one taken by the trial Courii. {if the learned cousnel for i'l1e'pei,itiei1er'-- is A l

7. It would be of i,ol'_ll:1ivtl)telf§that the juelgmem: of the 1971 SC _' Private Ltd., Vs. M/s Bhagwaxidas _Sa.t2tpr;ikafs}}_I_. and another wherein it has held that "in (:::I1se._0i¥,d.iis3c:i*ei:ionany orders of appointment 0f_"'i~l*f§S1,1lAE}lI1V(?€ oll""C,(_)_mmissi011. Court should be loath in V' i:1_tlerfe'1'ingwith such orders. Following the said dicta, yileiisyliﬂ-diuifi. lS..--i'i()l1 inclined to iI1terfe1'e with the orders passed. by'i__f:l1e trial Court pari:.icula1*ly when the said %,,, 9 order is passed on famual app1'e(ti.211"im1 and accord1'rag}y writ peti1:io11 is dismissed as devoid <1)? 111e1-its. N0 costs. Sbb/M '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court