_ 1 –
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. CIRCUIT BEECH
AT DHARWAD V
Qated this the 18′ day of December, 20()~8–.’f A’
BEFORE _ ‘
THE HOBPBLE MR. JUs’.{*’IeE’k:.._VKvre:A;1§”–
Writ Petition No. 974? oféazaoér fGM~{:}éc3f = V’ 1′
Eetween: K V. «
Narayanasa Laxmansa Ka¥:}ade,<'"" * u
Age 56 years * = V
Occ; Medical Praciitioner ._ :
R/o 179, Laxztai Nivas _ '
Mayur Nagar _ V :
(Anané Nagagr) _ _ V "
Hub1i--24 _ ...Pe£iti<)ner
Advocate -- absent)
And:
' " '~ is ..Jawaix:m' '
Aged 43 years'.
Qeci 'fiusineeéa A V
R] 0-T';'§'?9;*'?":,~ . Nfiias
'I':ai13a3'iGa11i*e.'j_
' -. ..,Respo:.1dent
x ‘T «,’§’lfis Wait Petitien is filed under fizficles 226 and 22’? of
” _ ‘ihe~».C20nstitution of India, praying. £0 quash the impugned
judgment dated 12-4-2006 passed in Misc. Appeal No.
28/2003 on the file of the Court of 15’ Adéitional Disitrict
” Judge, Dhzaxwad sitting at Hubli vide Am:1exu::*e~A.
kg
This Writ Petifien coming on for
this day”, the Court made the following: T ” -1- ”
oRnEge~
The petitioner has
chaiienging the order of the has” ‘ L’
set aside the order passed by éif1%d”di1:’§13Ct€d the
trial Ceurt to examine Vwifttxess as Court
witness, in aceorfianee and pass
oréers on mexifs. . ”
2. eeeeépkj-:.eg:ntT”<fi:emifi is the piaintifi' in
O.S.No.33'f9$.- He suit. for recovery of 3 sum of
Rs.1,3§),'725-Of) the appeiiant-defendant. The
}.a'e;s«p1aced. exparte. An exparte decree came to be
an appfieation under Order 9 Rule 13 was
file-dA 'fair aside the exparte juclgment and decree. it was
"._ <3p"po;seciz. -._."§'he said appiication came to be dismissed hoiding
VA [:.f1;;Aa;£..sf;§;mn1ons have been duiy served. Aggrieved by the said
the defendant pneferreci MA.No.'?'/98. The said appeal
~ .< [was dismissed. Against the said order, a revision was filed
5/
before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the Gourt
below and directed the Trial Court to refer to the evi{§er§ce_ of
the hand Writing expert and then decide the H
Accordingly, the matter was remanded to
handwriting report was secured.
objections to the report. 4′ <:iidV.,'T'm3'p.t
objections. The trial Court V'
application by order elaied 'I'iie{A order was
regected in appeal that the tria}
Judge was {he report of the
hamiwriting ex$§eri;:'ar1d"2vith' the aid and assistance of the
said report: sho'L1_lri recorded a finding that whether
defer.ufIan£.is d1i1y..V_§'§ervec:i or not. The trial Judge erred in net
tliewexpert to test his veracity. Therefore, it held.
order is illegal. I: took exception to the
_ e°ia1"'4«..Ju{§;'ge'-er" Comparing the admitted signature and the
:<":i§s};;uted=–:§i@ature without the assistance of the evidence of
*»:1es:ir1ds=c*ritiJ:1g expert. Aeeoming to the appellate Court,
there was inconsistency in the report of the handwriting
expert and the concinsion arrived at by the hanciwriting
n/
'e "aegue§sa§;'»_
expert. Therefore, it aiiowed the appeal setting asyg-:'§,e"'
passed by the trial Court dismissing the V'
pctiticm and directed the {rial J':1dge»{<)"'(l2'$;;)'s)se;:fif
after examining the handwrifing ex§eri’–.;_{s
accordance with law. This apassxed. Q11
There was :10 interim orfler gra3;1i1:d.VVth_is ea’se’.”~’¥’}ierefoI’e, it
is obvious that proceedmfié should have
came to an end.
3. _ …. .1§eti1.:§.<3.I1H_ fleas dismissed once for
default. V711: was no effect. Even today there is
my Iepresentéiion fr.-%r"'i:he.. In those circumstances, I
do 31:19'; 'firgi. in 1:his writ pefitien. Accondingly, it is
35/1
Iudgé’
fh: ‘V kspj —