.. 2 –
w.P.No.4225/2008
THIS WRIT FETITIGN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8:
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF §NDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER BATED 8.2.2008 PASSED ON I.A.NO.12/2008-‘EN
£Z).S.N<).63/2004 on THE FILE OF' THE COURT op C_1IV_IL;_
JUDGE (JR.E}N.}, SRIRANGIWATNA, VIDE ANNEXURE~E'_AN=L3_
BE ?LEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING on FOR ?§I§Ei'e:Mmf;AiéYI ' u
HEARING THIS DAY,TI-{E comm' l\éA£)E.THE_FO{:.LOW*E–N1G':: '
ORDER;
This writ petition by dedfendandt-..M1§Io.1_ 1sIIAdi:1*eetHe{i I
against an interlocutory 0I$I_Q2V,I20O8
(Annexure–»E) passed b§i”‘tIie. -the Court of
the Principal Civi} V_Judge”‘(J*{:’..IL)fl§:’) §rfife§igapama, in
the suit in By Ifidpugxed order,
the t1’ia1ICot14rt application-~I.A.No.12
med by t;tae”p¢t:tic§:a«:§~;<;ie£éndant No.1 under Order 26
C_iP(3Iutov..a;)poix1t a Court Commissioner to
I're'co1'dwhis' ieziidefooe at his residence.
2. ” the learned counsel appearing for
‘the and perused the impugned order at
Ifiaafaexgue-E. On a detailed consideration of the
‘mdjéter, the trial Court has dismissed the application —-
My
w.P.N0.4225/2003
I.A.No.12 holding that no ground was made out to
record his evidence at this residence.
3. I have examined the matter in the d’ 1 ‘V
principles laid down by the Hon’b?§’e>dA»’V.3i:.:3.prei:oe-:p_
scam mw mu V/s. d
2003 so 3044; relating to or ju.%isd:p:i¢n
under Articles 226 & of India
pertaining to interlocutory by Courts
subordinate to =
4. In order does not
suffer ve1’*roi'” of or error apparent
_ on the of the to warrant interference under
jurisdiction of this Court under
of the Constitution of India.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
Iudge
KM/Am