IN TIE HIGH COURT' OF KARKATAKA AT BAKGALQRE
DATED mm THE 12th my or arms %
BEFORE
THE Hownm mz.JUs*rIcE _
cmz. REVISIOR PETITION W_,m.'gs&;[g% %ws" . * T
BETWEEN:
M/S.ALLFAB.
I'~IO.202, 4m CROSS, V
4TH MAIN ROAD, '
4TH STAGE 1NDUs'rR1A;_.. 1*oi*J1$ :1
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGAL0P\E»v44j,"5V'.'
mam ITS
(BY SR1 A.v.Am;Rm1¥}L«1§i;%%k%%ADV.)
%THE BA§5is.£B%}£Y SURMAQTRADING
c0RPoRA'FIOH "I..f_I'B.,
No.9, '*'.KfALL«6b_£3E
MUMBAI-4~€)O 1,
j%'(A%A%;t~H%AVING I'TS"I3RANCI~i OFFICE
, AT»NO;25/ 1/ 2, 13'? CROSS,
13?-MAIHROAD,
sUDiiAMNAGAR.
'BANQi~ALORE--56O 027,
RERBY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
"HOLDER & REGIONAL MANAGER
c---r~"""'\..--
. .PE'1'I'TION ER
L..K.i;UNI3AR .. RESP{)£€i§ENT
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SL115 01:' THE
THE ORDER D'1'.3t). 1.03 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 16 15752000 ON
THE FILE OF THE 26TH ADDL.c1TY (3i'y'iL JUif'2'GE;5 (e<:1~1+:2s1);x
MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE. t i A
mis PETITION comma ON EFO
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIEG: V
Though this matter is I "asdmission, with
consent of the £01' iii-eijieizwitioner, it is taken
up for final fiiiis heard and impugned
orderis i'
2. The fgeiieiix, being the first defendant in
O;S:No. A"'f<:Ife_..vthe learned 26$ Addi.Ci'ty Civil
JALidgeV:V(C(:H;.2i)','«éangalore, has chaflenged the correctness of
the or<ief'~ida..Vte'r.ij'j3{)ii.2OO8 passed in the said suit rejecting
. Vpregver .. fez' of time for taldng steps against the
5 's?£tIiess.' i " K
3; 'I'h0ugh this case was called four times at 11.15
1.15 p.m., 12.45 pm. and at 4.15 pm. the learned
C'~5\'\.--\__
V_A.ADMi$A$IONV ei?m:'s«..
counsel for the respondent p1aint1'fi' remained absent. Since
this revision is against the order on an ixlterieetztoryi
application and further proceedings in the said
stayed by this Caurt by order dated
arguments of the ieamed counsel peijtiezief’
arguments of the learned eousisel fee ‘the ~ ”
taken as heard.
4. On perusal ef written in
the order sheet: itselfby J udge, and
also the enderssemeriti;,inad:e’~.byt ti:e…ei’fiee thereen it could be
seen that t’i”1_e’f1:1*s’t is the petitioner herein was
to secure the pireseiice (if the’ witliees to be examined for him
;a§;1d._AfeI{iii&t.e,:p:1I1x)se ‘ “”i’d witxiess summons was sent’. through
was netumed. The endorsement of the
‘»….»efiiee’ ‘ the”: §s:*:;c1er sheet reads: “RPAD cover returned
_. fv§J}.jVl§€lV’€d é-ieihe addressm”. This endorsement does not Show
I10 whether the addressee refused the said cover or
_wé§.s not found at his address. Despite this being so, the
“piiayer of the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 made
C—\£\~\/~
before the learned Addl.City Civil Judge for grant of time for
taking further steps in securing the said wimess be
rejected. I am of the opinion that the learned Cityé
was not justified in rejectillg the prayer ef ,V 9»
for the first defendant–pet;iti0ner. = f A 1;
h ht 1
The present revision ‘peu’fioet’t: tjnpugned
order is set aside. The 1earee;1Judge (CCH.-2 1)
shall afford Ieasormbte ” tirst defendant
therein the witness to be
examined fer’ with the suit. Under the
eixeumstarzeeeth the_I”e cede: as to costs. A copy of this
girder seat court forthwith.
sd/i
Judge