IH THE Hifiii CGURT' or KAmzAT=mm ¢:m;£:u:rit_~ $j:«_;1:~:'.,{;H_
AT EHARWAD _
Dated this the 8* day Of»I:}C§?CIfi'q§'3.V{'#'1d'
BEF'O§'<§E " 1' V'
TPIE H01\E'B'LE zv::'1§,-.«..._;vs'i41cE 2%'. r«:i§f.:;,a¢=z.VVV
W171: Petition No. 959':.,:;G<)6'{'c;.ryj}c:é¢:;
Between: A . V L' .
N. Rajashekar v
S/0 late K " _ _
Aged ab0ut59':*'¢a:s : A '
M/s Rajash.6:1:ar{§3.z. _ 4' V' V
ManagmgiPa1:it1.¢f""~V._ b V.
N0.2()O9_/ 1,--v..S€=ab3:ahs I_1-i'0aé';§;- ~
DfiV8fE1ja'§".'§Q}fIafla 'fl: V
Mysoitm_5?O"£i'{?.i_ . [ ...§'etii:io11er
"{Bj,e; SI"i ;?§_s"h§§f: Harazxahaih, Afivocate)
é§.1,...aié% 'V
1' 'rv;,{}s Industries ;,a;d.,
Repinsenteéé' by' fits Manager
1" Si'i€i{_13;.va;:s . Bab ' ' '
SA,I'o"Sri M' '"+.:i_ Sixri Naiciu
Agéd 3?' yeafs
Plot P~$~.r3.L;_-6, Industrial Estate
: {AQpp. Sri Saibaba Temple)
" Road, Hospet -~ S83 1203
District Respondent
(83; Sri A Vijayaiclmzsar Bhat, Astivocate)
IN?
This Writ E-%:~?,it;i011 is filed under Arfiicies of’
the Cozzmzitution of India, }:arayi:ag to quash__”i1i1eAgixxieriziéateci
206-2006 passeci 011 EA No.2 in OS No.190[_2(}QS’qI1 tits I:’i}r~:_of _
the Pxéncigaal Civii Jucige (Jr. -_Ji%3F”{3,_’: .Ho3;;§:t avkie, _
Ax111exure~A, and consequently allow’ ‘ §_Az_ N~o.§2_ £§_ig3d”by V
petitioner seeking for 8n1€I1dH16fli;’Qfi¢i1’C Ii=’I’itf. €I1 siai:e.’:j;:*:;ii;_: ”
This Writ Petition cozd.i1’2.g <)n"fc:1"' §ja.x"«'§'.i. Vh:§an';~3A
'B' gmup this day, the Court maélrz the tbflowmgz
The petitibncr Writ Petition the
order pas§se{£" ..':E€_;e" –C:o'ziI*t:« _'mj_ecting)' his appiicaiien for
amendmxgxgf t;rj.–;a:::_1,x?r.i¥:f:'2:_1_ siat:-\.n1_e1it,
"E-'hté h:§.S«f§ed tha suit for recovery 01' money
ir; a. st1m"vof"'Rs.3E5,639/–. Deiiexztjiant has filed his
stateméfit' "" "cCI;tesi:i:1g the said Ciamiz. PEaiI;t;ifl'.'s
?£"§i'"il{1'*E;B3i'.¢ '.V7{V)(?«-133.}3tI{3'Ef:. when the cast: was set éown for
.defEi:c§ai;i;Sf__éi7idence, he has filed fhe present application for
ameudvumiezit of the written statement, The plea which is new
~ Astfiught to be raised by Way of ajnamiment is to the mifect that
AAV;fh:e'Adocuments on which the pia;':atifi' relias 0:1 and which is
marked in the case in I'£'Sp€Ct ofwhich c:ross–eXam§11atioz7, has
already ham} (30116, are all concected and {he said documents
1./
3
are fbrged. Only after getting the copies of the documents,
after cn::»ss–exa::3:1i11atioI: he Ieaiised the same anti, therefore, he
wants to 1336 the appiication for amendment raieing these
pieas. The trial Com”: rejected the said appiicatigw ,,
3. ‘me suit is of the year 2005. a1~te:5-,ihs§{
provisions of Order 6 Rule 1’?;_ The
defendant has not co11ten¢:ie££_’_it1 t}:1i:_ ixr1itteI3»’f§i2iefi1e):§;t
is before the Court that the deeuments 61’a_ti*hieh ‘the petitioner
relies on are forged’ &_ c0:r§C0_c::teéi._ fin<3cu1ne11te.VA in that the
C10C11jIi1E11HtS"Ax%}T€:rC *:l'11't:1V1VVs_,§,"ii the plaintiff and defendant
has di'sI1e«cro'::S~f::%<i:f¢i1jfi{1%;ii3.e;t;i'::g1f:; 031 these documents. It was not
his _co11tei;~ti031. Va}: i':1«'.–iVi"" 1ZiiIIi1(': that they were all concocted
C1§:}{3'3&1I}{1£§I1if3. E': i S'i3–E:–}§2" when the case is posted for his evidence
V iaxfiie-ndment of the written statement. in the first
'piece, ii"fi;eAe1evide11ce has commenced, uniess an exceptioflal
ciretzfiiatailce is made out, no amendment of the pieaziigngs
" V. n C6316 izne permitted. in the instant case no S1ICh exeeptienzal
' ':(3i';{'IfA311}Ci$iS"t£';3}i1C€S are made out. $e<:<,)11<;i1y, amencimellt sought
is alioweé, it would have the effect of Wipi.I3.g Gut the
adm1ss1ons made said which 15 1mpe:m13s':b1e 111 iaw. In that
View of the matter, the impugnrsii order pas3_c'§" and
vaiid and do not call ft): any intsxfettace. *
is dismissed. A
Judge
Cid] —