High Court Karnataka High Court

Krishnaraj P S/O Gopalakrishna … vs Vijaya Bank on 20 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Krishnaraj P S/O Gopalakrishna … vs Vijaya Bank on 20 January, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT%EE§ixENG;é.:;GR'EE}

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY "Q1? JANU'Ai§?.3{ 2'O1oEEA  2 

BEFORE;  2 E
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEANAND BYRLI-'§R'Ef)bY
WRIT PETIT10._N No.«1EG5,92 QF' 2010 (6350336)

BETWEEN:

Sri.P.K_rishnar2;j,«',2     'V
Son of Gopaiakrisfi;fia.;Ma:=adit_hay;i, 1] V .
Aged about-44  .     
Soie Proprietolf' 1'  _  
M/s.R21_j'VVVidé(}a'nd A7'14diQ,*..,,_' _

Residing at '--Kattati2éi1=E '1'~I,<)i1.2._r_~_:"," * _ '

Bahladu V'iVI1age and'P.OstV, "-.._  

Puttur TaIukE,«-D. K. D§3tfi.r;t,' A  

PI'€S€!f1i3'yR€Sidi'f?gV21I 

 . _Car«.'::: {E S_h:a1<.unthaTa;'   EEEEE M «

Sivagiri Apafimcnt,

 303  Fiaair, "l.é,}<3_ S-;'idge,

Man._galrE,. I_):.§<§ ...PETI TIONER

 Shri.vS.;A\/ishwajith Shetty, Advocate)

  1.  \/IJAYA BANK,

Having its Head Office at
M.G.R0ad,
Bangaiore,

Z



l~J

And Branch office at

K.P.C0mplex,

Puttui' D.K.,  .
Represented by its Branch l\/latiagefi' 4' 

2. Sri.Krishna.M
Aged about 45 years,
Son ofChoma Moolya
Tax Consultant. . 
ll' Floor. J.M.Btiild.infg, 

Main Road, _   
Puttur, D.K.yDistrid,i.... . i  a";';;.;"RESPONDENTS

Thi_s__VW’ritPetition isiflledi’ur1der5ArtiCles 226 and 227 of the
Const.itt;’tiori of.iv7ndi.aiprayii”.«g_’ to quash the order vide Annexure-A
dated: 18.l2.2009’v:i’12:de».()h–s._l}”A.iNo.\/I in O.S.No.l4/2008 by the
Court of Principal littdge “(Junior Division) Puttur DK and
€[C., v –

Writ Petiti-9-n«’cc>mii1g on for preliminary hearing this

ld’ay.._the Court “nrmde the following: ~

,!UI)GMENT

“l’he’«;_petitioi1er is the defendant in a pending suit for

. “reeove”I*« of mone . The etitioner havinv dis uted the document
_ _ _ 3/ Y P 2-: P

aekiiowledgeineiit of debt, under which the loan was created,

it «. «had sought for examination of the document which was sought to

3

be disputed and had sought for appointment of

Expert, to give his opinion on the g€flUi?1E’Il@”S:S*f’h€ _said.u

document. The application having been:.’rejr;-Vcted’. pet»i’t’i–oner is

before thi s court.

2. It cannot be a suit for
recovery of money shot:.1.d..:’be. to an Hand
Writing exp.e’rt–:V 2 defendant could be
to refer the document to
an heid by the trial court. There
no rraerit the petition stands rejected.

36%:

IQ 5