WP No.65 £72 of 2009 :1: g IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY 0? SEPTEMB_;~E3i"il''' % BEFORE " 0 2 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC§fE;AJi'i' WRIT PETITION No.05i72iz/200-0 it 22 BETWEEN: 2 A A it Prashant Chennappa ;_I.i'ga}'i:.fiHi, 3. i Age: 36 years, Occ: Businessg?' _ _ R/o: Siddarameshwar'Traders, '' M.G.Road, Bag-aikot. ...PETITIONER (By Sri. Jag'aii_islii'- 0 Mirajkar; Age; 45 y'ea'1'.s_;_."' Occ; Business, R/'o Bagalkot. Tc:/Disfii' Baga1ko.t, ...REsPoNDENT
” Ttiiisiipeitition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the«.._Co;’1stit=uti0n of India praying to quash the order
passed the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bagalkot in
i.,A.No.’;No.8 in O.S.No.82/2008 dated 25.08.2009 Vide
» . _’ ” AVnn’exure–F
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing
.,«.i:10iS day, the Court made the following:
WP No.651’72 M2009
: 2 :
0 R D E R
The petition is iiable to be dismissed
following reasons: it if if
The responder1t-plaintiff filed * if
money. Written statement is
defendant. Petitioner–defeiidant
under Order XXVI Rule of Civil
Procedure read withl Evidence Act to
send the dispt1’te_d expert.
The learned Trial that it is a matter for
evidence. MoreoVeri,a1o_plication is made when the
matter isv.s§e.t down fo’r’-wargtunents. The impugned order
passed :’«.le”-mined Trial Judge rejecting the
eapgplicatiohnVlcaniriojt faulted. Petition stands rejected.
Sd/H
JUEGE