IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI H.K. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O M.KAKIMALLAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O HULLIKUNTE, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.NITISH FOR SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.C.M.BHAGYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O G.M.GANGADHARAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/A NO.81-6TH CROSS ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086. ...RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU IN O.S.NO.123/2014 ON I.A.NO.VI AT ANNEXURE – G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri K.N.Nitish, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
2. In this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumakuru, by which application preferred by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while allowing the aforesaid application, the respondent has been permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of the sale agreement dated 08.11.2010. It is further submitted that the defence of the petitioner by allowing the aforesaid application has been taken away by the trial court. It is the stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid agreement is forged and fabricated and is not in existence.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is trite law that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of proving the same in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial court is bound to consider the objections which may be raised by the petitioner at the time of dealing with the genuineness or otherwise of the document.
With the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh