IN THE HIGH COURT 01-' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIs THE 23"' DAY or AUGUST, 2010,-.__
BEJ-"ORE
THE E-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA €;Qw'bAVfff
WRIT PETITION NO. 1949:;/ié"0:1ie ..(G_M+C--§¢} 1 V' "
BETWEEN:
Smt. Dhrakshinamma,
@ Dakshayamma, D/0. Basapp'a,_" _
Aged about 44 years, . "
R/of Ganganagar, ' '
Behind SP office,
Mangaiore.
A _ ..PETITIONER
(By Sri v.E..s}d44déifamasAi3iAdv...) 3
Sri M.SiiivaTudrapp.a,.
S/o. Mahaduevapgja, "
Aged. about "Go years,'-
R/c4.;Kairv.:higan'a.! Iviilage,
Ach"anna"giri'i'Taiuk, """ "
» DavaI1.ag«e:'eV'DistriCt.
(ay..srVIiI.Gs..G§cHchinamath, Adv.)
:RESPONDEi\!T
'l""t:&i.s"i.3Vetition is fiied under Articles 226 and 227 of
~ the Ctmstitution of India praying to set aside the judgment
tiated 17.4.2010 passed in M.A.No.5/2010, flied under
" _Or.de'r 43 Ruie 1(d) of CPC., passed by the 15' Addl. Dist. &
Sessions iudge, Davanagere, vide Annexure -- K.
This petition coming on for preiiminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the foiiowing.
QRDER
The petitioner instituted the suit for".--ée'¢o'i;e-gy' t'-efffi.
money against the respondent. The suit _-Nas"'--diecr'eed.Ve;>;~' "'
parte on 4.10.07. The execution p’eti:tion._’wa’s ‘fi!:e~d
recover the decretai arnour:’t_.W.__Respondent”v:f’i’Ie.d«–._aH rnisc.~.,”
petition under R 7 of 039 CPC ~a_side’the:dAecvree dated
4.10.07. The petitio’ne’r_fi–ied.:_’objecdons to the misc.
petition. Enquiry Court upon
appreciation. dismissed the
misc. iifiggzrieved, the respondent
hereih¥’~–._firéd in the Court beiow. The
Court _vbe|oii}ii~w h’avin=g i’=e¥e3i§amined the record and finding
burden of””p’roof on the piaintiff with regard to
been discharged, has aliowed the appeal
andfhas. aside the order impugned before it. It has
“v..,ai|owe’dV’__the misc. petition, set aside the ex parte decree
4.10.07 and has directed that the suit filed by the
*2
I
3
petitioner be tried and disposed of in accordance with law.
This writ petition is directed against the said order.
2. Sri Siddaramaiah, learned counsei appearing
for the petitioner, wouid contend that, the Court b«e’lio,w._h-ays
committed error and illegality in placing
proof of refusal on the pEaintiff»..-,-5 *i’il.
Gachcbinmath, learned counsei, *ap’pVea’lrin_vig’
respondent on the other hand_,V,”would'”mai<e, sub'rn'issiio'ns in" T
support of the findingsand co~ntjl"usion of't'hei..Coi:§Jrt beiow
in the impugned }'i.idgm'ent;- A
itbeIinlij'.th€»:l€~n1isc;<i_.petitioVn filed by the respondent
herein, itwas sp.eciifica"l'iy. pieaded that the postman did not
tender, the lregiivsteredllenéyheiop to her. During the course of
' "'v..ei1q'Li:lry<"iinthe miscfmpetition, respondent herein has stood
'her,:V'e_ai'dbV,".iP,leading. There was no rebuttal evidence
pla~t:__ed on 1r-éscorcl by the petitioner herein. The Trial Court
by piazcvihig reliance upon a decision, which oniy referred to
.,the. prima facie proof, dismissed the misc. petition. The
_,_C§ourt below has rightiy not agreed with the view taken by
/…
the Trial Court, in the admitted fact situation that, the
endorsement of refusal was not proved by exam.i’ni_ng_ithve
postman. The Court beiow has rightiy
situation and its findings are neither}r_ratio_n’aE'”r’1o’.t.itIeg’a.lV. ii”
In the circumstances, the vt)’rVi_t:’pietitioii*i
merit and shaii stand dismisseid’;~w.i’There. .$h’a:EKV_I order”’
as to costs.
sac*