Sri.R.Purushothaman vs Indian Bank on 28 May, 2009

  L' BANGALORE ---- 560 094.

I W.P.'/74 18199

IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAIM, BAI€{§}';Ld}?EV  %  A

DATED THIS THE 28??' DAY__ o;?%MAckȎoti9   " '

BEFORE A %   
THE} HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ;s:AQA1§m§JAN"DAs
WRIT PETITION %1~::j';74%A1._§,'_nci¢:;:;:{§ank filed O.S.No.6176/2003 against the

§_ '_g)§:1;itigncrs  recovery of money. The defence of the

 is that they have repaid the loan amount and

' ii'1*;<.é fhe131 bank manager by name Sriflinakaran issued no

4j_'€;bj§E£:tion certificate in this regard and the same was

9%"



3 W.P,?418!09

produced before the RTO. At the time of cxross-examination

of PW -1, the petitioners filed an application under Order'-.26

Ruie S of CPC to summon the then bank ~ V.

Sri.Bi11akaran. Under the impugled order,  

rejected the application filed by the pefitiexaers, -1

writ petitien.

2. Admittedly, SIi,}3i11a1<a.¥e;§;a. is an 'emp1r$yee of

respondent-bank. If for   v*2{eS;)ondent-bank

refuses to necessary witness,
then the ‘II? infimnce agaimt the

bank. 1. the fiefiifionem camrnt compel tie

‘. to exeiiiiize a witnws.

observation, I find no juaifiable

” gr_ound “te with the impugzed order. Aecerdirgbr,

‘ :’ihe “w.fit__pw’fion is hereby rejected without reference to the

— V ‘ ‘ – . re-spezicieiat.

Sdl- g__
Judge