* S1 o.K1U§2UyAr:, " « ..... V4 »
, AGED 1'~'sBO{.J"I' sewage,
"REs1D1Ȥ;N:r_m%24%/'B,_
_ - ;{i2ISIriNAGI1_?I. ' ~ * : RESPONDENT'
VA T . _ _ {saI.J.w.ciiANDRAMoHAN, ADV.)
2$?’._{)F THE CONSFFFUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH ANNEX-
ORDER msssn ON I.A.NO.8 AND 9 IN O.S.NO.92/2003
“~D’1′.4.4.2o03 ON THE FiLE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN.) K.G.F. AND
IN THE men Comm 0? KARNA’!’AKA AT .
DATED THIS THE 27%! DAY o[:«5,+;;’1«f;B12L!21I<x¥ Q 1'
BEFGRET, " '1"' N
THE HOWBLE MR.'}§J$u'PICf:'§~!E'3'.V;'3,PA'E'fi; 3
wan' rmmon
BETWEEN: " K '
SM'F.D.RA.JESHWARI, _ .
W/O.K.V.RAJU, ”
AGEDA BOUT 42 EE;-D23, ._ Z.
RESXDENT AT DOOR .?JO,.1-474,
SWARNAKUPPAM,
ROBERTSDNPET, ‘ ._
KOLAR c30_.LD.D§éf1EL.ps”-eD563-».1.22. ; PETITIONER
(SR1.R.s.A’rgKAL.AxD*?3;A:Daz,’)_, ‘ 5
AND: ‘ ‘ ‘V
K.KRISI’_1NAN,
sL{BRAmN.a5swAMf§ KOIL SPREET,
DHARMARAJ _KQiL;MAiN ROAD,
A’ ‘F«HISHWR£’I’ PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE F’0LLOW§NG:
the witnesses mentioned in the additional list s1:tl:_>::;:1ittef.”l’_.§__:’
filrther stated in the afidavit that non of
witnesses at an earlier point of ttine
unintentional mistake.
4. The Court bclouf has holding
that the signature of statement
and other documentv the case of the
plaintiff as to executed by the
defendant cheques and other
docunaents of tnay be in the possession of
the to be exantined were not
necessexy in tne below has further held that the
vifitzlesses in witness list were all unwarranted
dthevifpetitioner cannot fish out evidence through
the x$*it_t1esse~s:i7§;1ened in the additional list.
V ” * L5′: counsel for the petitioner contends that the
who are sought to be examined by the p1aint:ifi’/
T petitioner are the employer and the banker of the defendant who
[are in possession of the undisputed document containing the
signatures of the defendant He contends that since the
%/.
defendant has denied his sifiture on the Pxonoteg
for the pxajntifi’ to establish the sig1:1ature::_is 4
of Witnesses whe are in possession of like
on which signature of defendant fpundd “at: an point . L’
of time.
6. Learned counsel =:f’or:’.:§itted.j;’e_epondent strongly
refines the conten{id¥§.of stating that the
application is only to drag on the
iiffitzbjeetvd td’iié””‘re§;pondent to unnecessary
ha1dship.:V ” ‘ d
I have the learned counsel fer the parties. On
oi” on record, I find that the Conn: below
jixsfified in holding that the witnesses sought
‘ _to be uncalled for and unwarrantd witnesses. The
beiowg? was also not right in holding that the Promissoxy
d be proved by referring to the siwatures on the
document such as vakalath etc.,
11. It is made clear that the Court below fie
plaintifl’ to adhere to the time 3:16 *
Witnesses and jusfifiabiy deny ”
protract the Iitigafion. It is.»’n¢_¢d1e$s tha=:: : .
defendant shall be entitled to afifihe deems
ncccssaxy.
Sd/-‘
Iudge
JL