High Court Karnataka High Court

B Subramanya Joshi vs Devadas Pai on 19 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
B Subramanya Joshi vs Devadas Pai on 19 February, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH comm" OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mas THE 19'"! DAY 01? FEBRUARY zoogfya.
BEFORE J 'V "

THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE N ANA;~:_1)fi    '%

WRIT PE'rI'rI<3N No.7s0/£3667'r€3M--+CPC,i "  L"
BETWEEN: ' A' V' .

B.Subra111anya Joshi

S/0. Bfihyanza Joshi

Aged 46 years V   V. =  * "

R/3: Amandi House, Pe1*1;_$rajc 'ViL§--age"  _

SuUia'l'aiuk    _  2,

Dakshina Kannada  _    "     ...Petitioncr

(By Sriyuths 1\/%__;\4J"i'$_gj}£:£w.i§Vr.r:jVi:i;1'1 §2ai'V&'Ja§«ag:xm:ash, Advocates)

AND:

Dcvadzézs Pai 1"  ,  --

S/0. Bfitxraxsizothr-i'1na%  ---- '

Aged 68 'years,  " 

Bcllarc ca's:;a'*'Jmag_e,Asu11j;;. Taluk

Dakshina Keii:.1:;ada.5--    Respondent

 V'  .{_By" 133/'.

V "   ;§»étiTtVi0n is filed under Articles 226 85 227 of "the

1Co'n'e.Eituti:;¥':1V of . .l12dia, praying to quash the ordem passed by the

Couriéof Civif'j_J3.7idge (Jr.Dn.), Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Iiannada in
G.S'.*NO.4V3/ dated 24.07.2006 and 20.09.2006 vide

'V Anx1exuyé--.A 85 etc.

" *  This petitibn coming on for pmliminary hearing in 'B' group

 -"this déty, the Court made the feiiowingz

 



ORDER

The petitioner had filed O.S.No.43/ 2005 ;e”

defendant from interfering with his posséésioxr: ”

enjcaymcnt of suit schedule The: u

produced an agxtcmcnt of sale ._

dated 20.02.2002. Even bcfoi;::.Lfii<; doAc':"u1;1ent: §yae.]tendered * T'

in evidence, the trial " the; dsgcument.
Thereafter, pcfitioner the suit as
not P'"t=:sa<i:d. T}1§;"hf__ial rho suit: as not
pressed. u an order under
section * Act to impound the
documérxt and recover the same as
if it wcré 'a1rréars' cf

" _; 2'. In a deegeien ri:po1'tcd in AIR 1989 KERALA 248 (in

'V irks iftrzyhese Vs. State of Herald. and athers). it is held

't1:;at__ is merely presented along with the plaint,

there is go girfiducfion of document, Court cannot impaund a

after disposal of suit as an item of evidence. of
. L. – 9

,?

f\.-} ‘ Xvx’L

In the case on hand, me document 1 ”

presented along with plaint. It was” neither u

service to c3bta111′ any intenm order iior

Therefoxe, the ma} Court was jusfified the * L’

document and also A__IeferriVIA1g.VVV:A”t11e”Zmafter Deputy
Commissioner to reeo\vré1–7t(§ut&3?_’ as arrears of
revenue. The g

3. In

%%%%

‘fin; ” The impugned order is

quashed. ,
M Fudge