WP NO12428/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE IITH DAY OF' sEPTEMBER,AV2.oP'O9f' ~ 2
BEFORE
THE HONELE MRJUSTICE AJIT
WRIT PETITION No.12428:/1200?}f'GMACPCIT_
BETWEEN: I 2 I A
CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O RAMAPPA JADE-IAVV
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS _ I .
R /O MOORUSAVIRMATH ROAD '
SALUVANIHUBLI I ..
DHARWAD DISTRICT. _ -.;,.P'ETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.P.I{I5LK§§RNI;'ADV1}__ I
AND:
PIINDALIIIAPPA A _
S / O YALLAP--I?A JADHA"! 2.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/OXJNKAIL HUBLI, ..... .. .
' I - DHARWAD DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT
"(BY 'sI§I;s'AOIIIN'~s.MAODUM, ADV FOR
' ._ *- ._1VsRIv.v'I~ON'E:sHwAR s.sHAsTRI, ADV)
. PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227'
OF TI-IE>.CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASI-I THE
ORDER, 'DT.11.08.2006 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBLI ON I.A.NO.19 IN R.A.NO.20/2004 VIDE
-- AN_1\_IEXURE--F' AND ETc.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
I I 'IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP NQ12428/2006
ORDER
1. The matter had come up to this court in a
appeal. This Court allowed the appeal and re:1§;:n:i’¢;c£: _
matter for fresh disposal. This court also”‘p¢if£riit*ted.Ath._:e’
defendant–petitioner to adduce his evidence, I
directed that the suit is to be.disposed.of”on daytc ;
and the defendant has to covrnplete llevidienlce ‘hand the
proceedings are to be 51 specilied time.
After the remand, in vi}lejtitioner~defendant
makes an appliclaliiltlln Rule 1 and 2 of
the to witness summons to 3
persons.’ The has been rejected on the
ground thatthve ‘oldservation made by this Court is only to
‘«../,thé.i._éffeC’t that delfenldlant be permitted to adduce evidence
andlit ho_tl_j.necessarily mean that he can examine any
more wivtnessels.
Apparently, evidence will have to be interpreted in a
Brbaa sense. Evidence does not confine only to the parties
V’ but also witnesses. Having said so, I am of the View that the
%
\
we