3 w.P.13259gg_o0:3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGAf§O1§}:§ % _ " DATED THIS THE 26??! DAY 01:' 1\4gAYi20<)f§..& 4 5 ' 7 BEFORE % THE I~ION'BLE Mimuszfxca ms WRIT ?ETi"l'ION Nv():~,.i:i3i3.f): SAHYADRI COLLEGE v1mrANAGAR, SHIMOGA & PETITIONERS i A V % f B Y'"SRI G s BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.,) ow» 3 W.P. 1§g59 [goes "mm.----- SR1 M K BADURUDDIN 3/0. LATE MOHAMMED ALI A AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS V OCC: TIMBER MERCHANT GOWRISHANKARA NILAYA.' BEHIND KOUNTEYA HOTEL JAYANAGAR, CHIKMAGALUR ~ _ y * RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 M C JAYAKIRTHI, ”
THIS WP IS 31:41:21) U}-:’§«’I’D”§’:’II§:: A.mff1QLEs: F226 85 227 OF’
THE PRAYING TO QUASI-I THE
ORDERS PAss.;13:13 “3? %’ CIVIL JUDGE (smmn
“IN- 0.330.222/2000 DT. 29.11.2006
wr1’k PAYMET 012* DUTY AND PENALTY
V1?’RO}I”)’U C:E’Iiavv II§’V.”;§I$fN§XURE F AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL,
% v_ ._’VQID Axsiiia TO BE SET ASIDE.
A petition coming on for p hearing
the Court made the following»
a«’-~
4 W.P.18259¢/2006
not liable to pay the arrears of rent and other ”
by the plaintifi’. On the basis of pleadings, the 1
framed as many as 1 1 issues. ,
an afiidavit in lieu of examir1atio31~i;}»cIiief_§”‘The V’
vide order dated 11.09.2003 acce;;fc¥§:t1;e by
the piajntifi’ and marked him
as 1361′ E-)xs.PI to P1 L. V At of
?W~–1, the _ negard to
marking of ageement on the
both the paI’1;’i«es¥_’ the eassed the impugled order
duty penalty on Ex.F-‘1. Hence
the plaintifi’.
4. erguments on both the side and perused
‘ ” ” ‘T papers.
55. H -Admittedly, Ex.P1 is an unregistered weement
4: between the plairxtiffs and the defendant. On
C7L’v’v’\~
5 W.?.18259[2006
1 1.09.2003, the trial Court marked this documen*s’:;é’:s,fc;;:§§’§1
at the time of aceepti11g the affidavit of V
examination-iI1–ehief. Immediately at>.i;fi.e”tirne–:of.»:V
cross-examination, the defendant’
regard to the admissibility” The
trial Court aiso considered niistake or by
ignorance or .. unreg’stered
agreement of the same can be
rectified at the concerned
party to payvnnty the said document. This
reasoning {of tAhe accordance with law and I
interfere with the same. The
deefsionsu by the learned counsel for the
v.e “‘pefjtiones:_fAT in Shyamal Kumar Roy «vs» Sushi}
‘ ” reported in 2006 SAR (Civil) 939 has no
to the facts on hand. In Shyama} Kun1ar’s ease
= Snpreme Court noticed the fact that the appellant
consented for the document to be marked as exhibit
5 W.P.18g39[200€>
has lost his right te reopen that question. But in the
instant case, at the very irxception the defendant
ebjection for marking ELF} before cemmeneeiieeiriifjet’:-‘.
cross-examination. It is always open. for em ” fag
correct the mistake that had empt inlby 7.]
find no justifiable ground to vii-tI*:1_
order.
6. I the by the
defendant written statement,
defendant between the parties as
landlord and u£e13,a11t,VV:Vfl&;.v_”vi:eiar of this admission by the
c_iAe’i’s*:-,r_1Ada:i:t;;. for the plaintiff to file a memo
not pressing Ex.P1 to be marked in
eviagfiwed .Iéeeem’ng such a nberty to the plaintifi; this
.m1:it:ion_i$;; hereby dismissed.
Sdii
Fudge