Partly allowed

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) v. Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2019WP/108640/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash a trial court order rejecting an application for a court commissioner, but directed the petitioner to reapply with suitable material showing the witness's inability to travel.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected, but the petitioner was given an opportunity to prefer another application by enclosing appropriate material.

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.108640 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

DR. ARUN JAISWAL (MEERAPURAIAYA) AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: SAI PRANGAM NO.135, JYOTI COLONY, AOC KIRKEE GATE SECENDERABAD-500015, REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A. HOLDER SRI.DEEPARAJ S/O SHYAMALAL KALWAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GULABSINGH CHAWL, TIKARE ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR W/O CHANNABASAYYA MUKTAMATH DEAD,

¶12

SRI.CHANDRASHKHAR S/O RAJSHEKHAR JAKATI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O: USA REPRESENTED BY HIS PA HOLDER SHRI.RAJSHEKHAR SANGAPPA JAKATI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.2/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Petitioner is being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge C.J.M., Dharwad on the application made under Order XXVI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for appointment of Court Commissioner to examine and record the evidence of one Damodhar Reddy, Advocate cum Notary of Hyderabad.

¶20

The Trial Court vide its order dated 11.12.2018 has reasoned that no materials are placed to substantiate or corroborate the plea of the applicant that the said witness is not in a position or that he is physically unfit to travel. This Court has perused the application and the reasons set out by the Trial Court to negate the request of the applicant. The order impugned does not warrant interference of this Court. The writ

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

petition stands rejected affirming the order of the Trial Court. However, to meet the ends of justice it requires that the applicant be given one more opportunity to prefer another application of similar nature by enclosing appropriate material in support of his contention that the witness is not physically fit or that he is unfit to undertake travel from Hyderabad to Dharwad.

¶23

Petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶24

Sd/JUDGE

¶25

yan

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) v. Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) v. Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashfak Shafi Ahamed Vs Mohammed Sab Chand Sab Mangaluru

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil Vs Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

Venkappa S/O. Veerabhadrappa Ugarkhod Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera

Shri.Radhakrishna S/O Gadageppagouda Patil Vs Shri.Rajendra S/O Venkappa Nyamagouda