Sri H B Ventatesh vs Smt H B Srilakshmi on 29 May, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri H B Ventatesh vs Smt H B Srilakshmi on 29 May, 2009

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

m THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANGA'ii03iE:VV'.    'A 

wrreo was THE 29" DAY OFMAY, ~ I ;    

BEFORE é   %   
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE'!-if:,.NAC?aA$I§OHAF§! D:§S~~  

 

ms. Nosoase I200§:'Gf!\}lft'£.FfC "
BETWEEN: " '  

Hﬂvenkatesh   '
S!oBasa9pad1ar%.«   %    
Aged about48y!ear{2%'?'V' V '   V   " 
Fifa Srirama f¥'é:tipié~~St'rgae1,'.._-...__  '  '
Fort, ' _  " '  _
Holenaras-i.pu_I_'a-573   

I   % ..PET!T|ONER
(By Sri Abhina.v.R; Ac3v.¢cat'e._f¢r. 

Kumar 'and"KVuma._r)' 1 " _ 

AND: i    

  'i .« :B.$}iiakshmi """ H
V  Ageti--vabo,ut'3%v%years

Lﬂlcmiaté $ri~$§&§5a-ilpachar
Flfa Balegarara Eseedl
Fon¢..Hoienarag-ﬁpura Town

V --V Hassan. Usgmct.

- "  $3mt.Sa;vitha
 "«.\'P»'.!o Basavaraja
_  Aged about 28 years

"  . ' ' " R/ii lechanahalii viiiage

 ' 'V -Kasaba Hobii
  Hoienarastpura Taiuk

' " Hofenarasiputa

Hassan District.



 

 

3. Smtsarojamma

Aged about 74 years

We late Basappacfmr    A
Sri Rama Temple street  
Fort,

Hoienarasipura

[Deieted vfo dt.31 12008]

4. Smt.H.B.Sunanda

W/o iate Nagarajachar

Aged about 52 years

5 phase. 5"' Biock -. 
1"' Cross, Eeeranna§Layout.~-  . 
Vinobanagar -.  
Shimoga.

5. Smt.H.B.Savitha_.~ ._ .
Aged about50"y¢arsA:.; _ .. '
W10 Devarhf' ._1;  '
3.a.o.ofﬁce   
Hassan Disttict. ' _

Hassan. W

..RESF'0NDENTS

 , '(By $5?-:$.V\E(_; l\'a;fayat'rAié' PJ£«:a.r!.*iy, Adv. for R1-2)

 jue, #i~iion ﬁied under Articles 226 8: 227 of the

Consiuttion' ciilndia praying to quash the order dt. 12.8.2003

rejeciéim i.A;.?_§iassed in OS No.79/2004 by the Civil Judge (SD).

. Holenarasipyra'.

%   ~ : .Thi$ petiﬁon coming on for preliminary hearing this day. the
  c~9;2ri_fﬁaf;de the following;

9.3.1

Respondents 1 and 2 ﬂied O.S.No.79/2004 against the

petitioner and respondents 3 £0 5 for partition of plain! schedule proeerﬁes. {During the eouree of the cross»-examination Defendant no.2 confronted a document dated conﬁrmation deed. PW.1 disputed the signature on deed. Therefore, defendant no.2 ﬁled E'.'IX§No;? «_unde.;r iiﬁuie 1u(a) CPO to refer this conﬁrrnetion hencirvriﬁng Under the impugned order .ciisrttieeect"'i';ﬁL:No.7.'V'V Hence this writ petition by gtefendent-no;2.' V.

2. Heard argurnenteon' the entire writ papers.

3. it of Few that appointment of a court _ comn.{iseic.ner wit} onty after parties adduce their evidence and in iifjtheire e.ny;e'mt)iguity in the evidence so adduced then me court {ionimiesioner for cteriﬁcation of such an ambiguity. in the ineientveese, the defendantslpetitioners have not cemrnenced ;.'their__ evidence. Therefore. at this stage. appointment of court 'cernrniesioner wilt not arise. i find no iustiﬁabie ground to interfere it V. ﬂte impugned order.

QR./x.

application after completion of evidence. I law without being inﬂuenced by its eaﬁ€e'r-pfdefdt.i:2.5.2G£§§f§. "

With the above obsemaﬁon. «vihé "'ﬁé§'%tVVv"'pe;Atition 'vivé hereby disposed of.

A Judge DKBI

4. However. iiberty is reserved to the petitionez tO~',ﬁi9 * H such" an"ap§licé:3oﬁ is;

ﬁled then lhe trial court shall consider the séme:'_i'n :'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court