: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUYI' BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF MARCH 2009 BEFORE THE H()N'BLE MR.JUS'I'IC'.E AJYI' J.GUrsz.J_ég;;': A. WRIT PETI'I'iON Nos.604O0--401/2009(GM--(;"1I'C)L' " ' BETWEEN: 1.
Smt.Akkamma, V 1
Wfo Chikkanagouda Kersgli,
Age:6_8 » 4 _
.0cc=.H01iSéh9fi,%%..” ”
[R] 0 G11d_dasia Anwsti, .
‘Tq:-Ran.eb::fi1;fir_,b ” ‘
I3iSf£–HaVtt}§’i.’ ”
2. _ ‘V Smt.Kama1.avvaLv_a1ihs Laxmavva,
V, W./o Mailagppa Andalagi,
.age;57 ycars; “”
‘ V. 3 Gcc:He11sehoki,
.. “R [ b.La;cr’e.eshWa1*a,
. ‘I’:g’:’Shi2.~a}1atti,,
QiSt:.{;}.’ak1ag.
3. ~ :Smt.vSha11tavv.’«.-L,
W 0 Yellappa Tukkappanavar,
AA Age-:52 years,
‘ Occ:Hou$t:ho1d,
R/0 Mishrikote,
‘I’q:Kalaghatag”, Distfihazwad. …Petitioners
(By Sri. P. G. Mogali, Adv.)
AND:
Smt.Chi1mavva,
W/0 Dundappa Maragi,
Age:66 years, I ‘
R/0 Kalasur, . 1 A. ~ _ _
Tqzsavamnc, Distzfiaveri. _ ..,T1’€03pond’e;n’*t0 *
(By Sr1.C.V.Ratt|hai11 and
Sri.B.F’.Mcgundi, Advs)
This pctitzion is flied _1A1L;de;r’Afti;é}cS’0’226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying quas”h.f”tt1e.order passed by
the Addl. Civil Judge-., (Sr. ‘l1’s1A3,;) IJMFC, Haveri in
O.S.NO.43/52.0536 ‘O11 LIA’ ‘ 1% V dt.05.01.2009 at
Anncxurc—I~’iV }?;n(i;5tét<3.,.V
0-Jim 0Vfi'for {:1Viiers, this day, tht: Court
madcv0'ihe'f0§ismifig:»V. " – '
%Tf0RDER
1. _ u when ‘0;;=;{._ was listed on 16.03.2009, a
” _ xxr.-A:A1V sV’L3=g’ed. by the learned counsel for the
V notwithstanding the interim order ganted by
” 13.01.2009, the learned trial Judge insisted
shouid cross-examine the defendants and
” ihair wimcsses. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs were
édinpelied ’00 cross-examine the defendants on 23.01.2099.
” It was further submitted that pursuant to an afidavit, this
fact was ‘mvought to the 11012100 of the learned ttriai Judge. The %
%
:3:
ma! Juége was directed to ofier an
regisny was summoned to secure __th.e_I_eco1«ds§”‘*-:”v
2. Expianation is oifered iby __le3fned
the records are also summone’d,a”
3. A perusal of i§’.=;1i; thecontention of
the petitioners inasmtxchies. filed before the
learned order was granted
by this V:-3 tgnémo was filed oniy on
copy of the interim order
grantee}. thereafter the trial Judge has
deferred efiie A”‘-Heisiee, it does not lie in the mouth of
v _ the i)C*lii?i0;3ers to eoiitend notwithstanding the interim order
4’tE1_.is_’_{)ourt having been brought to the notice, the
1:ft”iev1’}L:.¥udge insisted that the matter should go on.
Explazjsrtion offered by the learned trial Judge is accepted.
‘ Coming to the meats of the case, an application IA–VIII
” filed by the defendants for production of 14 documents.
initially, the said application was allowed as against which
the petitioners preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in fl
,/<5
further submits that if the appiication is
objection the documents are marked, it woum .
to the interest of the plaintiffs.
8. Learned counsel for
that objections to the appficafiod “arei€,._fi1eh§* ‘égid plaintifis
were heard. It is 01113} is allowed.
‘7. Indeed,’ as well as the
that objections were
filed heard. There is no
masofi-_foj-,1me observation made by the learned
trial J11dgxe”*«t1d1.-east obfieetions were filed and the petitioners
tiideed,’ the learned trial Judge was of the
‘ avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the
a;§pa§cafi¢§;«:_ “required to be granted which to my mind
apfieaxsetohvbe a right decision.
In so far as the adnzzissihility of the documents in the
.vv’¢iridence is concerned, the said admissibility is kept open
and the defendants are required to prove the said documents
,/
//../
in accordance with law. Havirig said so, I am of the View that W
the impugned oréer does not warratiinterference. Petition
stands rejected. -_-_