WP N0.6048Z».2/ZOIO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF EEBRUARE, 20":
BEFORE;
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICTE34ASUBH'AéHE
WRIT PETITION No.6V_(')4$2/é0v.1T£:) :3 V
BETWEEN: T' V
1. SRLLAXMAPPA ._
S /0 TIRKAPPA CHAVATANNAK/A_RCC"--
AGE 50 YEARS, '
OCC:AGR1C-ULTURE R /Q SI.RI~N_AI;jIALLI
TQ:MUNI:§ARg3"I' _DI.ST:C:ADAG V '
2. SR1. D0.1;>I3AT;»;NING'APPA s/0 TIRKAPPA
'
AGE 48 YEARSAVOCAQAQRICULTURE
R /0 S'IRINAHA'LLI=.TQ;_M'{.INDARGI
DIS'1":GADACv._ ' * "
3. SRI.FAf{mAPPA SfO'TIRKAPPA CHAVATANNAVAR
.. AGE '46 YEAi'3SV._Q..QC:AGRICULTURE
" ~~R/0 VSIRJNAHALLI TQ:MUNDARGI
' * A. p1sT:GADAQ. ...PETITIONERS
{Bi*.'$R:'§I§ANU:§IANT REDDY SAHUKAR, ADV)
V A AND? .
4' ' «.SRII.RAMAPPA
VS/Q HANAMAPPA KALAKERI
_ AGE 65 YEARS OCC:AGRIL,
R /?O KOMBALI TQ:IwIUW/INAHADAGALI
C " 'D'IsT:BELLARY. ...RESPONDENTS
WP No.60482/2010
1 3 :
is produced to show that it is the true copy of the original and
the said copy cannot be taken as secondary evidence.
4. Sri.Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner Vsdbirniptted
that Xerox copy by itself becomes secondary it
can be marked.
5. I am not inclined to accept the said ‘sjub,rr1issi.on–..V
63 permits for production of the copyief the’.«ioriiginaliijifiitheup
accuracy is proved. In this case’e’eeyen thei”docurf1ent:a11eged to
be agreement is not Itis document
afleged to have been signediibyi’V’théi Further, the
xerox copy ca’1i?notabe a.c.ce_pted _* as authenticated or accurate
copy of iithe” porigina1}’– aspect of the matter is also
considered the’A.pex.i’Co.urt in the case of S1nt.J .Yashoda VS.
‘i A’ “‘smt.é€;shebee Rani (2607 SAR (Civil) 492}. Hence, in View of
do’=.no.t find any error in the order of the trial court.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd,/e
JUDGE