High Court Karnataka High Court

Guruputra S/O Hanmantha vs Samulappa S/O Margappa on 3 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Guruputra S/O Hanmantha vs Samulappa S/O Margappa on 3 September, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA  
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA_f"*- I  ' 

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SE2P'FE1\,/{BER 0' 3 T; "  

BEFORE3

THE HONBLE MR.IIUsTII'cI:_ ANAND  «V

W.P. No.8I460/201i0_%'i'GMecPC)'  

BETWEEN

1.

(BY SHRI LI;;{AQIA.TAVF;I®BD¢I3aED ADV)
AND _ . . . _.

.1.

GURUPUTRA ” ; I
s/0 _AGE;68_ YEARS” ..

occ:AGRIcI’_II:;.TUIj<'E–_V_ _ if; ,
R/o;vILLA<:'IE 'IIADDAALI-~I:fQ_ 'YADGIR
DIST. GDLBARcA.;_5643_2–If- ~–

 ""    * ' ...PETITIONER

SAMTIJLAPPAI '- 

S /_D”«:MARG_APPA;’ AGE348 YEARS

‘OCC:AG’RECULTURE
RI,/o1.v1LI,Ac3EAI§ATGI TALUKA SHAHPUR
‘DIE?’I’:YAUGIR~{58-5 103

.53’/D NINGAPPA

1 AGE: zI3″¥EARs
~ “”QCC:AGI.~1ICULTURE
‘ QR’/’D’-.3/ILI.AGE KATGITALUKA SHAPUR
_ ‘DIsT_;YADGIRw585I03

RESPONDENIS

‘KEY; sIafRI. GANESH NAIK. ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. FILED UNDERZARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF’
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE oRDER DATED 0I.04.20I0
‘v”iDE ANNEXURED PASSED BY THE i”)iS’I’RlC’i’ JUDGE: AT
GULBARGA IN RA NO. 37/2007. IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

This Writ petition coming on for prelim_j.I’i–a1jf

in ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following: _

The Writ petition coming on for ‘preliminearydhegariiigf

in ‘B’ group is considered having regard
to the facts and

2. It is seen that
the petiti-oneiiagvdhinrlfig it appeillarit before the Lower
Appellate an application to adduce

additional VVVeI.Iidence__ by “production of an unregistered Sale

LoWer….AppelIate Court has held that the

lvseeking to adduce additional evidence is not

maintainable, for the reason that there is no plea in the

vd’.,.,_”VplaiIIt ‘asA’:.regards the alleged Sale deed and further, the

“‘d_ocu’r§fr.ent which is sought to be produced as additional

eviclence is an unregistered and unstamped document and

,v
_’/ /

. \\’
/,

3

therefore. could not be marked in evidence and has

accordingly, rejected the application. And rightly so.
In this View of the matter, there is no infirmity in the

impugned order, the writ petition is aceQfdirxglyV’dis’3:{fi.$SeeV:1.

e §{§3$::