I§3TKflE EiIG%i CCfiIRT <3? fifififlifiifflfifi, 1&KNGHU$?fi£% ,
flA?EE TEES TEE 3a"*BAx 0? ocToBER,ééd${f7*'
BEFORE ,w__
was fiQ§'BLE m. JusT:cE:RA?S"Ed?A$$$:5"~V"
W.B.E0.1G8?3f2GéfV{GH?CFCI_ x_ "
amwwssm *," x '-'
mun—-a._..–.–
2 3 axznsanxaanarpa
s£s.LATE ESHRAEAFFA V V
AQEE A393? an TREES :nW».*
Asnxcaawmazsw .’*_f =
mm3numnvfi@wE,… _,
Efifinfiflflflffii TQ,js3:;gaAqg:$m;_’Q ,
–,’»;K ‘. *<.. "..; PETITIGHER
fisy srifa V ?aéx3$H w £§§.:;
3&3
..un.u.-..u..u
,3 x fiE§E3HHRRfi??%LV ,
. . . . .
‘fi§E§x3EGUT;55’¥E3RS
AER£C$fiT8§§ST”_””
3:1u1?§ aI_ ‘ LAY???
. gfifisaafiazPmRAH9ExTEns1ow,
V ‘$333 fi.E.Q’HHfifiRN, 3333053.
. . . REPGNIEENT
» jL§5§’§s: finzauxna H nssuaamns w Anv. )
5 rams $9 FILED FRAYING TO QUA3H’ vnz oxnmn
V._V V§TL2a12.2QGfi ARE ALSO THE sauna DT.11.6.2GO7, on
‘»_zA.ma.4, Fhsssn av THE Lsnanzn czvza JUBGE
: wwuau wr nnnavnnnnn rwwn uuuna. yr nnnmnlnnm ruwr: Luuiu wt” mnmwmwukm niwn swuum wr KAKNAERKA, mun LUUEH U!” KAKNAFAKA Miiéifl CUUR
{3R.E%Ii§ EHAQRAVATHI OH 0S.NC!.41.r”{}2, VIIBE ANN-E
ARE 3 TQ THE WRIT FETETION.
J;
o
N
‘ “”‘”*”” “” ‘””‘~W”*”‘”‘”V* WW” 3-Vwifnf. ‘9’” I\HfiWI-am’-\i\H fituri uvum ur nnnwaannn 2-man uuuxl ur AAKNASAKA rmm-1 %…U’U’Ni wr EEREWMEMKM mum LUUK
TEES PETITIGR CQING UN FOR ?RfihIHIfi$Ef
Hfi£1fiG 2% B EREQP THIS BAY, THE EGURT MfiEE THE_K
FGLLQWXSQ :
ognnxL»,M
Heard the laarned caunael fQfi’tha;fi§$§ie$ 3
and gezusad thfl writ paper§}J
2. fhe patitianéfi gé aaiiifig in questian
the cries dafiadklz.12;fi§§6 afi§ %l%¥afihe erder
dams: :3. . 6 .;ze’.:s ‘:;_*::V ‘~%”:=:L,s 41/92 .. The
aaid wrdara %§§ impu§§#fl at fignaxurea E and F
ta the §e§i§$§#;ffl§h§ §§§§tiane: hezein is the
dafendant v.G. §_.£Ef;5″.’~i:.ifD2. In the pending
;xaaitgf§fi§:get;€i@n§x had filed I.A.Nfl.III at
VEka;”£i:§$~ i§atan£a seeking ta summon ans
=_ Sr%}§fi3fi§%§fi§§§z, a document writer, as his
: w;tnags¢ :i# that regand, it has been stated
= §§ %h&:§%titi9ner herein that a éccument had
V §a#§ $fiaftsd by Sri.Chandza5h9kar umarein the
“* _ pi§intiff and the defendant had agreed ta
c$rtain. terms. In. the fiirst inatanca, the
2:
II
I WKIURI MVP RMRIVMIRAJH TEBKHKI BVJURE. if!” I\J’\l\l’l”%fflQi’\£”% l|”\’:!\?£”‘l ‘u9WJ§s5fl’! NJ!” KRRIWMEMRM l”‘H’J!’! \.ulJ\J!EiI ‘MT’ K\£’§KIVflEH¥\I\ fiifififi QKJUMZ KI?” fiékfllfiflkflflfl fllkflfl l’Jo.Jl.Jfl
tztiai Ccaurt had ordaxea zwtice ta the
Sharzdxaahekar aftm: allawing
saifi Eri.Chandrashekar had apqgrad bs:§g§’§naV_
tria..’i. ficxurt an 12.12.2086. ‘rh§%’ 1sm’:néd%.’a¢u§12¢;&
Ear azzzanxianta 1 ta 3 wag-got g:s_iésVent{ ‘
the Court and as such, tag fi§a;n§d §§$g§}nas
qtaeatiwnécl xagfigd tax
the: cixacumfint and ai;:«.ee :$£r §LV has-:::1
stataeazzég no
fuxthm: the mattér.
3ub$e §;s:{d;i;s:.:e §:h$V_V_ =:’io¢§zment as stated in the
tztial Ccmzrt has rejected the
aai-.:.i_ by naticing that at the
V ear1ié’;r ‘:%;x{s;;taz2caa 83:3’. ..C:ham:irashaka:: had.
” * $§§esgaa”hétaxe thm trial fieurt and had stated
tTh.alt %;E*£e:a :13 new» such ducumezzt.
3.. Ewing naticed the csrdaers impugned in
thia getitissn, I am of tha View that inscafaaz
L
e
V»
“‘6-:\a’1JKl \.}l” !\H Al-\’ ‘- ‘ . . _ . .
‘”‘”‘\”‘¥ “IV” V-»=V\~Ht§,H,r’I’ nnluwatnnm naurl uvunl vr uvuuvannaxn rum:-1 uwuau vr «Mama-unawn «mum uwwms urn wirnnlvrsaawumru . m…-.. …….n….}
i
issue
auxrzacsna ta; directed
aim:-Va .
4.. observaticns and
§.:i.3:ec’i::3;_:;n8,L””~.th:-*2._;:et–§.t’:E.’i§>n stands diapcmed cf.
in this patitiem.
5:11-
Iudqe