IN THE HIGH cwar or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE mrso mas THE 11* DAY or JULY, 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.Jus'r:cE sue:-cAsH a.Ap:% %%--LA:@ K H,R.R.P. 1 ; : Sri. Kashyap D. Doshi S10. Sn'. Devandra Doshi. Aged about 23 years, Residing at No.40, Yamuna Bai Road, V A _ V' Madhava Nanar. H ' v_ 1' ., (By 53:5. 9.0%, ¢s;m:§fje;¢ srigissvg s§ar;;na§:§ak%M.. Advs.) ma: '''' , Sri.Prafulcfiand__P.&uifié'..V--~.._ '» % S16. Sri. Sohan Raj Mufiwa,' Agedaboutsflyeam ' ' ' Shop No.15. Ground F£§br,_ ' Olety Market, _ '" V..¥¢9,125.v_A€:enge Rvvoad," « ..... .. . V" RESPONDENT
HR§PM:s}%fi:éd under section 46 (1) of Karnataka Rent
aa’ainsf__* % ma order dated 04.04.2003 passed in
% Mis;.No.142i2cme on the file of the Chief Judge. Coutt of sum
c’g;x.s.ésk;%aan¢aso:e. auowing the pemion filed mo 9 Rule 13 of
CPC”Af6r*sétfing aside me Exparte Order dated 13.02.2006 passed
gains: me respondent here in HRC.No.210l2005.
This revision petition coming on for admission this day, the
‘ Court made the foilowina:
9_RD_E.B
This revision petition is directed against the order
Misceiianeous Petition No.1 42112006.
2. The respondent had flied a mésceliggaeous 9 _
R 13 at opt; for setting aside the ex–parté2A:orde’r pa$s§Sd..’in: ‘k T
N0210105 dated 13.2.2Cfi3. . . é ‘
3!. The learned Trial Judge
considering the évidence of were
marked in me cross-axaminatiggryvifif the shara
written by the postm net reasons wem
forthcomins gihe. vi}-as–vVstfi:ck down and mm’ n
again. In of 4’thav share: was not ciear and
also in View of meem.aam by the PW1 for his absence, it
aside, exparteV’ordVt:i. _
appearing for the” petifionar pointed ofit
fiaiéfossé OIPW1 that. he has admitted that he
gm yams. to his advocate and has aiso instructed him.
% A fegwérigken {he said admission he submiuau that. once me
_’ had the lmowledge. here was no justifiable cause to
‘ ‘T » “aside the ex-parte order.
5. The Mismiianaous Couxt has found that, the posm! sham
oncesuuckdownwasove:writtenaaain.Theadmissionintl1e
cross examination of me FW1 is ciarified Mamie stating mat. in
respect of the present HRC. PW’! had twitter instrucbd
advocate no: he had given the Vakaiath. This
shows that. there is no admission. in the ends of K
opinion. inshead of onmainm the revision. it ioooio no
{fiat Court is directed to oxpodiisa the HRC3<i13®¥f__ vd'?Vi¢.§'Avvil|
prejudice the gzetitionet.
6. Considering the goo.-Wig oodiV also
considering the order passed I am of
the opinion t!1at.ii1is;e’~J$i§»n nooks V’
7. However. one
moi Court oi-mi oo oony as possible not
later than ti1roo..V_nionii1sw… oounooi for the petitioner
submiwadfhato ii: “for cross examination of PW1. if
is oo,ioao: count iooompioo mo proceedings within uwoo
ooo moipt of the copy of this order. wimout
I . . giving Mioumment.
S&[–
}ué§%
*API’-