Karnataka High Court
Shri P S Chandrashekar S/O P. Subramanya ... vs Shri P S Sathyanarayana S/O P. ... on 12 August, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
EN THE HIGH (IQURT OF KARNATAEA AT BAEVEGALORE W.P.1\EO. E6898 {BF ZZIIKJS
.3.
12»: 1'35 HIGH cougar or KARMA mm A r BANGALORE
DATED '1':-us THE 12% DAY or AUGUST, 29;es
35:-'ans LL %
ms t~;oA:'s:.s MR. JUSTJCE N.§(.P_A 3';:;§, n
w.1r>.NoQ 10898 01:' goxés {r3%:x:z;*c;>c%}%%%%
BETWEEN
SHR£,P.S..CHANDRAS£-iEKAR,
SIC} P SUBRAMANYR S__E'§"§'Y
AGE-54 '2'EARS, V '
RIO SAFTHAQERE COMF'*'~§.FJ(_ ._ V
BfiH=RQiXE%, AESSEKERE ?Q1_a{VE*J
HASSAN DiSTR§CT v
PETiTEGI°~£ER
{av we r«.2YA¥A:§;1:fRA';:;<m§:Q§;%,;Tés§' J
ANS :
saw 9 s sATme*A:=m;9A&=ANA'
320 P sa;e'RAMAzwA.sEI1?r
Agaaa ABOLIT 45, x»--'E.zx:=-:3
4 522:; mesa :~;:::..>._ 4&2 NEEELADRQ
~'~0r-#9 §%QiSALESF%&££R'A ceases
e,m+:<3A9, ARESEKERE TGWM
V .. _ HA3a=A£-:;2s:fR§c?
_ _ % _ V' RESPONDENT
A 'race zazjég is was uuaea ARTECLE 22": 0:: THE comswzrunom
- OF !Ni}iA,""i?'RAYiNG TO QUASH THE GRQER DT:23($.33§ PASSED ON 'v§A,NQk26'FVB,ED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF ESPCQ ihl C3S.N€}.24;'Gt$, AS " '-- PER_ANN'--'i~\, PASSED BY THE CGKJR? OF Ci's:'lL JUDGE {$R.DN); ..fz5R§SE'§~€ERE, AND DRECT THE {ZQEJRT 0F THE CWEL JUDGE {SEEN}, 'AR'§8E§'<§§RE '§"O DEQBE THE SLUT 5N {3S.NO.24!i34_. {N §CCC}RDfiN€3E Wm-§ _ LAW.
THIS 'KP, CCBMENG (EN FDR: PRELMQNARY HEARING TH£S DAYS " " ' , Ti'-{E CGURT MADE THE F€3§.§_0WiN<3:
as Ha? ?E~E EEG}? CQEERT C3? K.AR3\£'ATAK£i AT BABEGALEPRE W,?N{}. 19898 O? 2968 133$ THE? HEGE-I C{§{ER'f OF KAR2'<EAT:iKfi£ AT BAE'§GAL{JRE, '*é>'.P.3'é{}. E0898 OF BGQS J2.
:OR8ER:
The peiiticrser, assailing the ccrrecéaéss order dated 26" June 2008 pas:'-aw-*.:*..9r1 _f_'iiAat'%.,, V under order XXV§ Rifle £)( sf CPC '%;'f:
the éaarned Civii Judge (Sr.i3§n~§:}fisr§sei§"e§e,'wide }?2\§§§ur$'e*x'{:2re-- 'V A: has praented thi$,2.é:*.'.§f§ pet%fi§fi';.I'j'
2. Raapendent-P-iééniiff' .§§Vé5.j'V_~iC}'.;S_Nc.24!.'-2084 befare the C_i'v%'i"j:;;.§i;d.g?=;A against the petiticner»d§fefi§§5£;"" A V'$a %t, respsndent has flied ikam. :$(>e*vy@;nde:*L%jer::ar XXV; Rasie :x am far apfiointméizfaf VVCa§fi§m%§$ibn ta handwrkéng expart '£a '_vcenf:L{:3arEa_ *£§}g tfiégaurtedvségnatzira of the defendant in the ::2;a%*€%'i%r:r'sv..4§j;l?é;eva:;i::.:{fgrted 313.18%? with that cf his admitted si.§g:'1;_1}='z5*t':zre 'é %':'1..V_Qakaéat and written statement. Tha saéd '»-'4._'__"-yappiicétifiiz ffiad by rapendant had some up far T:."%:;on5§5ieration before tbs Triai Court on 28*?' June 2&8. Triafi Cnurt, after hearing bath siées and after ' censidering the avezrrne made by raspendent Era the ___________,,,___,,,_,,_,,._,__........_..--1 1'53 HIGH CCEURT ti}? K:1.¥{?~??~.TAiZA,;§T BMGALQKE 'xi-=ZP.NO.10898 0}" 2993 EN 'I'}'iE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A? BA3~?GA§.€}RE. 'AEPNO. 13898 {H7 2('3{33
-1.
app1%ca'e'on and the objections filed by petitioner,-'--.._has eilewed the said appiieetion. Being aggrieved":'V:b:§4'e:"geeV. impugned erder as referred shave, _.g;sef€§tVi.er;[er feitf K necessitated te present {me epprepriete reiief as stated eep{e. A
3. The principal £eemed eeunees appearing }"{}:r'-- fihe appiieetien filed by respeficient Cwourt £5 net meintainatfie '§i'f;_r} _tha t,::«'e§reac£y ev§dence of both the pettieg .he$;et§ee%n '{:_cSrn_p§eted and there is no occasion fer the ':."$pe':1é.*5efs.!é euchj en appiieetéen and entefieining by the Triei Ceurt when the matier ' §e'i§ete.<§ "fnr..Aerg_ements,is net at eié justifiebie. Further, he reependent has not made out any case befere fnevTriaE Ceurt tn entertain the said epplécatian nor ":j"f";«'r§e! Ceurt: has recerded any valid reason fey efiewieg said appiicetion and therefore, the Empugned erder cennet be sustained and it is flame in be set eeéde. Te EN '§'i~}TE EEHGH CO{ER'i" OF KARNATAKA A3' B;<§.3€GAE,C3RR '§~F,P_}EC},2f)893 OF EQGS TEJE HEGH CCEURT OF §<I.AR}EATAI<'.A AT BANGALORE. W.P.N€l E13898 {BF BGQ8 -4- substantiate his submission, he pieced reiieece on the decieien reported by this Ceurt in {LR 2982 Kath:-fieka 3599 (Annappa Mestha Vs. Mutayya submitted that if the ratio of *31emeeid ee$ef'~..ie'*~}eede" v eppiicewe tn the facts; and cireumetaneee' efihe impugned order passed by"{fie._Ceeré'V:t;e!_ee§f eeven.etV'3 be sustained and it is Esme fte beVAeeVf'esi'ee. .
4. i have heard "£ee{n;e;§t::!V:? appearing fer petitioner. Qfveende urged by pe€itienvef,"V§e€:%.Li;i§r}§.'VVV{?:ev"iV}f§pug'eee erder passed by the Triei Ce er:"Qn ' efi flied by respondent as V referred e.e£>e§e=,._ en§'erig.3eee that the Trial Ceurt after eriiieei eveisgetion ef the everreents made in the affidavit §£efi'--.e'¥ei*:§."_avitVfi"fine eppéieetien and the ebjeeéiens taken V 'by ea .pei;£.té'e"eer that he is net the signatory to the efieged "V~fper%:if%en erréved at between the petitioner and reeeendent dew 31.3.1997, has recerded e finding that %f the . matter is referred te expe te examine the signature at IN HE HIGH c<:zz.m' =2»? KARBJATAKA AT BANGALCFRE 'Je'P_!~i4:E,§0898 {:2}? ms EN '§'i~i'£ HEGH C{.'=L?R'§' fl}? KARHATAKA AT BANGAi.ORE._ ':.1i,PF,'~E€C). 19898 2{}{?8
-§_ iaw iaid down by this Csurt in the said dec%$ion.VV.B'::§f§'the facts and circumstances of the said ::ase_.;'_'i§~é'I3=¥f%;'a£y_'* _ different from the facts and circumgtanceg'"uf.iihé"'§%}s€an§ case and therefore, the same §s,nc:"T A.3p{§%§c2bf¥e- case of the petitioner. Theréfé-':3, 3 'aria? " L' View that, the crder pasged Ttiafi .!:é'urt. §<.2~vv:§,?a:st and reasonabie and intef§e%3'n§:e ._gC';euri: is not justifiabie. H&gn9§V,vVV'vby pezétioner is Eiabfie tar as" % 03' me:-sss. Grdered accord1,i;§f1g%y sd/-
" = % Iudqe :32 Ti-E HIGH COURT <31: KARNA:kT,='§KA AT 8ANG.<iL('}RE wTpV2\%::.:e39a gees