High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt. Ratnamma vs Smt. Gurudevi Claiming Toa Be on 18 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ratnamma vs Smt. Gurudevi Claiming Toa Be on 18 February, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
 

.i'J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY;_:'2'O~«1.'Q-..:    _
BEFORE     % ' 1
THE I-ION'BLE MR..JUsT1cE s'u1EHA1sH_Rf.'AI;1"'   é
WRIT PETITION NO.6024ii/2EJ_10%GM+CPQ1  

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATNAMMA W/O D_EvENDRAPRA_ JIR1BHA'VI.._ 
AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, 'QCC:I4IOUS--E_HOLD " '
R/O HIREKONATITQ: HII'~2KERUR  "  
NOW R/AT SUNAKALBIDIRI,-1 * * '
TQ:RANEBENNUR.,_D1sT:HAvERI ' -.

   .    : ....PETITIONER
{BY SRI VB.' SHARANAB.A.S'A.WA;"ADV. )

SMT. ._GURUDE_VIACLA1MI_NG -TOA BE
w/O DEVENDRAPPA JIRIBHAVAI
AGED ABOUT 5'2YEA~RS; 0CC:HOUSEHOLD
R /O. suNAKALB1D,R:~...~~
; TO:_RANEEENNUR, ' DIST: HAVERI

._.

 SR1": BASAVARAJAPPA CLAIMING TO
* A. _ S,/O«D'EVENDRAPPA JIRLBHAVI
A _ 'A GED ~ABO'L;.T 25 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
._ " .._V%R/'O'sL;NAi{ALB1DR1,
A _ TQ;_RAREBENNUR, D1sT:HAvER1

 3. SR1; SHIVANANAD CLAIMING TO BE

T A S /O' DEVENDRAPPA JIRLBHAVI
' AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
_fR/O SUNAKALBIDRI,
TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI
ALL ARE NOW R /AT KATARAK1 VILLAGE
TQ 8!. DIST: KOPPAL



4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
BRANCH RANEBENNUR, TQ:RANEI3ENNUR, DIST:HAvERI
...REsPONDENTs
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 22,6.AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO "SET. jAS'IvDE
THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2009 PASSED I3'g*""THE.._ CIVIL
JUDGE(SR.DN) AT KOPPAL ON I.A.NO.I1 /09 (FILED U/O 41 
27 OF' CPC IN R.A.NO.7/09 AND R.A.NO.16/O9..VV1DE ANNEXUREV 
D AND ETC.    : " " . =  *

THIS WRIT PETITION COIVIING  EOR"~PRELIfMIANtARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE EOLvI.OwI'Nc;;  '

ORDER

Petitioner be:Hgt¢_ aggitiex,§;ejdVt”ip”‘by t1’Ie'”O”r”der dated
15/ 12/ 2009 passed ‘has filed this Writ

4’ ,C’o’nte:S’tiiig–._T’respondents have filed an

apgplieatioii XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

production of additional evidence in the

. said application was opposed by the

petitienefi

Appellate Court Considering that the

Sdocuments Sought to be produced are very much

&&~L

‘T’

essential and they go to the root of the matter and also
the reasons given for non production of;-._these

documents was satisfactory, as the applicant

secure the documents and were

knowledge of the applicant and; su::vha_th:e helow

allowed the documents to_b_e produced.

has made it clear that the”i’e»a:dd.itional_ evidericelnwill be

looked in the appe’al_”‘itse1’_fi 1. will he decided.

The order shows for receiving
additionalVe_vid}31*1lcc_at theiiappellatefiourt.

the learned Judge

having satisfied’V.with’t–he cause shown by the applicant,

” _ all.:ow_ed theapplication.

A grounds to interfere. Petition dismissed.

35/ ‘1
Iudcje