IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABANGALORE DATES THIS THE 18"' DAY OF JUNE 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mmusrice H.B1LLA@ AC: é ' §2§n_re;_en;_; Srnt. Gulnaz Begum, W70. Ahmed Sherifi, Aged about 45 ears, Rlat. No.20, 28 Croas, 7"' Block, Jayanagar, Banga£c>re-560 O82, Represented by her _ Pcrweromttorney Hoier . 1 _ summed Sheriff. . - _ v_ i-?&TiTtONER (By Sri. Kurngg-rig. Kuaiar for :F>etr). AND : Sri C.Nagaraj, ~ = . Slo. Late Cchandra" hekaraiah, Prop: The Reiiance Eiec-trio Company, Aged 3b°*1i':59VY33f9. % ..... 'Residing 32 Noj3G2,"C-rwrad Fioor, 1'1?' A 2O"'«Ma¥;1"Road, 5| Pifiasé; J.P.Nagar,- ' ' Bar:ga%cre..§5e'e?$,..__ RESPONDENT
This writ “petétior: is fited under Articles 226 and 227 of the
, ,_C.’or33tit:..*tfu:2:} of India, praying to quash the order passed by the learned
Cityv _Civ_ii ‘Judge (OCH-25), Bangaiore aiimving t.A.VIs filed in
M§sc.’/’.’¥0f2fiO5 by §ts order dated 7-6-2008 vide Annexure~E.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preiiminary hearing flwis
‘* _d’ay, the Court made the foilowing:
L/.
Q£_%_R
in this writ petition under Articles 226 anc£§V.:é.i2}”V-‘ ~
Constitution of India. the petitioner hasjgaiied in ‘ ~ 2
dated 7-6-2008 passed by the trial court in v«:~;;
l.A.No.7.
2. The re$9°”‘,33~fit fiiesd—!V:VIX;N6′;»?’. undervordrér 26 Rule
10-A riw. Se«c.t51 ofCPC”‘;s:n1tini,;i_titi§-é’i?’..t$i1V:it:t’ refer the dwuments
to Forensic Sciersg.-e VLaboratot;i’fnt” onininn. The trial court
by its order dated 5555 application.
3;’ – ttéépétitioner herein has flied this
_. ienrnéd cniznsei for the petitioner contended that
‘~ _ t1’:é:t–ttiai.–.couit.wasindtiuéfified in allowing the application. He aiso
Afziriifninai proceedings have been initiated against the
ifietitinneri invinitgsnect of the same matter and it has been questioned
this noun in Cr.P.Ne.286l07 and mis court has granted ‘stay
it nnd’–..fl1erefore, the trial court wivas not justified in atiowing the
it He aiso submitted that, if the order is given effect to, it
it “will prejudice the defence of the petitioner and therefore, the tria!
V,
court was not justified in allowing the application. He, therefore.
submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained..in”iaV,irr’.t:4 ”
5. l have carefully considered the sut>r’nieeione”‘niacle ” ‘V
the learned counsel for die petitioner.
6. l do not find in of the”?
ieerned counsel for the ;__petitioner,fl”‘for” reeeon, suit in
O.S.No.7184i04 has oetitioner for recovery of
possession and .exparter’%ree’iiee,_t$een To set aside
the exparte4_Véiecr?e;el_._ it has filed Misc.Petition
No.71 -perm’ of the respondent is,
he waenot’ and his signature has been
forged. Criminal have own initiated against the
Thenreepondent has requested the court to send the
.’ toiiorensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. The
into consideration die stand taken by the
reei::onde:nt’v end also the evidence on record and in View of the
epeoifiooese of the respondent that his signatures has been forged,
nee eilowed the application and ordered to send the documents to
i ¥orensir: Science Laboratory for expert opinion. l do not fine any
error or illegality in it. While it is true. criminal proceedings have
We
been initiated against the petitioner and stay has
Therefore. in my considered view, tii_ere,isAho’–iimerit’—infiiig
petition and hence it is liable in be
7. Accordingm it is disgmfisecs. ii ., F
NT!-.
That does not mean Miscellaneous prqgeedingis’ ” =