High Court Karnataka High Court

N.Srinivasulu S/O N.Anejenailu vs D.Nagi Reddy S/O D.Maribasappa on 19 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N.Srinivasulu S/O N.Anejenailu vs D.Nagi Reddy S/O D.Maribasappa on 19 May, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil


1

are THE 2»-ms;-1 comm OF KARNATAKA AT EANGALDRE
mrea mas THE 19″‘ MY 0:: MAY 2909
BEFORE %
‘me: HONBLE MRJUSTSCE N.K.F”-‘ATSL

cm. REV§8iC)N PETITION No.1 13z2oo9{:w*::s¢V;§”__”%5’.;

82 !WE_E§\l:

N.8R%N§\fA8ULU
SfC).N,ANEJENA¥i.U

AGE: 45 YEARS,

GC-C: AGRK.’-ULTURE
RKOKAKARLATHOTA
BELLARY QESTRICT-553103 ”

~ V ; H ..P E’TmoNER
(BY SRLBSPRASAD,”fi\¥DV”.)–.L =

AND: A ‘

1, D.N’AG§A3’3″;BYA’:fi~: % , –
8s;3.B_,MAR§’3.AS4APf9_A’-._ . %
AGE: 3%: YEARS, ” «
OCC;..VA7GRiCUL-TURjE.._ ”
RiQ.HAL_Ki.§ND.i V”3._LL;!§.GE
_8EE__LARY~.S’83103 %

” V’ A «2V;”” éSWARA?PA ” “””

‘ » _S:’Q,1’3V.MA%¥iBASAPPA

. A–t’5’E».:, 2’3’*f_E’ARS

–..{3C’C:”_’AG’R_K3ULTURE

L’ RiO.HALAKUNBi VILLAGE

‘HE LALARY-583193

,9.)-

. u.w;LL:KAmuNA

“‘3!Q.D.MAREBA8APPA

‘ AGE: 2? YEARS.

OCC: AGRIGULTURE
RiO.HA§.AKUN{I3I WLLAGE
BELLARY-583183

tn)

4. GXEERESH
8§’C}.D.MARiBASAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS
OC=C: AGRECULTURE
Rf0.Hfiii.AKUNDi VILLAGE
BELLARY–583103.

RE

“ms CR? 155 FILED UNDER SEC”¥’l.<7l*-isifi1V5:'A–iCzF_ CTPC.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Am: czaesn i}ATEE'2~..i?.63_.12O09 A

PASSED EN MiSC.2OI2088 ON THE. jO'i'-7_ '¥'}f{'E._F'¥.i'l«._,C!V}[£1'.
JUSGE (SEEN) 8: CJM. 8Ei..%..A¥?_Y; ALi.O'NiNG "=TH–E

F'E'¥'iT|ON FILEI3 UNSER ORQER 93.13 CPQv–TQv'¥?E8"3'"Ci5ZE'=i'

THE SLRT EN (38 NG.123i'2002_. "'~.

mas CRP cemme G%%.._i5VQR';4gQMi.S$§.{fN ims DAY.
THE coum" mag Ti–;%E…;=oii'Low~:r;ic;:i._ '' "

:%i'i*iiiis'Airiatteg-Zifigaxiieg"wsthéfitiie gurisaiction of ihe High
Qourt bf Bench at Dharwad, and there is
£10 at rgen£:3é* in '2he V :3':ait_$¥;~~~

52; Léarned iééfiréisei far the petiticner at the out set fairiy

itiiativijiae instant Revision Petition may be dismissed

'as;_4:§§sith§ir'a§*§{r:*i:; reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh

Revisiim Petition cm the same cause cf action befere the High

A AA.{§c%£:rt of Karnataka. Circuit Eencifi at Dharwad and the office

'may be directed to return the Certified Copy of the order

V' Hgzroduced aiong with the Revision Petition.

3. The submission cf 8ri.B.S.Prasaci_ ieamed Counsel
appearmg for the petitianer as stated above is plVa?;T_éd. on

reaord.

4. Accordingly, the Civii Reviisinné peiiiiitm’:§$v.¢§i9niiss:§§:¥””‘

as withdrawn. Learned Ceunsel fol?-.f;ht§_’ApA£’;tit«i’£:ifiéf:5?»

to wiihdraw the Revision Pe’tTVitia’-s..Vr..2 tfienxabie A..pe.%I;§VtViVo§1er?%

{E59 3 fresh Revision Pgtifiion Hxigh” of Vkamataka,
Circuit Bench at Dhaf§$;::,_’i£’&.V:s<a;_»éV§£v§$§§j~.9; neeéaarises. In
case the iearned Ceu;1s3e¥:._1'j<)r.'i{HAe;LDétifi6»i§'§?"V"files a memo for
mturn cf o%':_ti': :e .<:§5'r«c:i:V<=:"'s'V.'p:*:¢u:.V'E:«1.1ced in the Revision

Petitéan. R$f§§ceé _"i$_Véii§*'é~;at§*c§'.'i:§.;re§A::rfi"»;h'e same forthwith. '

Sd/-

Judge

2119*