M.R. VISHWANATH Vs. MRS. KAMALAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there was really an accident or not.

(2.) THE Trial Court has chosen to give a finding that there was no accident at all. Such a finding is seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel produced a copy of the complaint which he says he has filed before the Trial Court on 10.1.1992. The seal for having received the document before the Trial Court is dated 10.1.1992 and in the copy there is a seal available. The complaint copy has been received.

(3.) THUS non -registration by police is nor fatal to the case. He also relies upon the dictum of this Court in 1975 (2) Kar LJ 1945 in the case of D. Narayana Gowda by His L Rs Vs. I.N. Krishna Madystha, on the following passage. It is first urged by Sri Padubidre Raghavendra Rao, appearing for the Respondent -judgment debtor, that the documents filed on behalf of the decree holder have not been marked as exhibits and that therefore the lower appellate Court was justified in passing the order of remand. But it is to be noticed that these documents have been relied on in the course of the arguments in the executing Court and the executing Court had treated them as evidence. Hence the mere omission to mark these documents as Exhibits by the executing Court amounts to a mere technical defect. No such objection appears to have been taken in the executing Court. Moreover the copies of the orders passed in the revision petitions are certified copies as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Hence, this contention must be rejected.