Veerendra S V vs R P Ravi Shankar on 25 March, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Veerendra S V vs R P Ravi Shankar on 25 March, 2010

Bench: B.S.Patil

WP 9698/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY or MARCH, _2o_':  2 H

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JI3s'1iCI~:-«s.p_s7..1;>A§;§1j§l   

w.1=.No.969s/V2016'«£e§i;4}e1=c)"'  - . «. " 

BETWEEN:

Sri Veerendra.S.V.,
S/0 Lat Yalleshappa,
Aged about 64 years,
No.320/A, 12"' Cross,

Marijunatha Nagar. £1 Stage; ' 
15' Phase, 40"" feet}jr<3ad.,'--.p i 

West of Chord' RD__ad..- 

Bangalore   »  

(By Sri   V

AND:

Sri R.P.RaVi ish.g'n1:a:.», A
S/0 R§,K.P.Gupta,'- 

 " «..Agedr._abc;;it  years," """ " 'V

R/at No. 15?, Savmpige Road,

 Ma11eshw--ar'arii,..e_ "

Eazigaiore.  (I03.

. . . PETITIONER

.. . RESPONDENT

 petition is ﬁled under Articles 226 8: 227 of the

  vConstitu'tion of India praying to quash the order dated 23.11.09

= _ e~.ipasse'd by the learned Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,

«.  Barzgaiore District, Bangalore, in O.S.No.713/04 on I.A.No.8
  produced as Ann--G.

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,

i' V the Court made the following:



WP 9698/ZOEO

ORDER

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order_4l_ldated 23.11.2009 by which the court below has rejecteél1:mlA'l ifiledn by the petitioner who is the defendant in the' No.8 was ﬁled under Order VIII l2ule_"e1£7l[9}r.._ofllCl5Clfseel§ing ll permission to produce a paper pub_licatio1'1itin.o_'_Sarijevanil's. Kannada Newspaper dated 17.19ll.l29O9Vnin ofgthe case of the defendant.

2. The suit _ i.stfi.1ed herein for specific perforrnanced-01" dated 19.05.1995 wrongly stated in 'rthe..Vl_lw3:it-- petition as 31.05.1995. After cornpletiorpofijaplplication IA No.8 was ﬁled along with two other applications to reopen the evidence. While the has allowed the applications 1A Nos.6 8: 7 for AreopeniiigflV'1e'~_--=defendant's evidence and also granting permission adduce further evidence, the present application gNo...E:3v...:ﬁled seeking permission to produce newspaper A g:.lpub].iclation is rejected holding that no case is made out for _g1f_ant of such permission nor was the document relevant for the purpose of deciding the lis or the issue raised. Bf, VVP 9698/2010

3. The court below has opined that the issue before the Court is as to whether there was an agreement of vsé,_1e'sdated

1. .mm, h ' f d t sagas-t sc?h%3u]1e prdfaeggzﬂn IE 6 1103? e§d'(ij3£.1tntpE111 redase ¢1«ncxys7;;s;;ldr pubiication had no relevance. I do not find any iiliegaiityvbr emf' of jurisdiction in the order of the ccrurt~-below seated w:a,.rr'a.nt' j ' interference in exercise of the writ jurmdiction-.. Henee;'i'::Vti1e petition is dismissed. 2 V *_=-§df"

'EUDLQE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court