High Court Karnataka High Court

Nagappa vs T.S.Pavankumar on 18 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Nagappa vs T.S.Pavankumar on 18 February, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M. F./l.No.4367/2009 and
M1'sC.Cvf.1 1 1 6542009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2o1_Q._'_O

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  V 

Miscellaneous F£rst A eal Lfilo.
And i
Misc.cvI.1m%35:/2.009

BETWEEN :


1 NAGAPPA
S/O HONNAPPA ._ 
AGE: 55 YEARS  _  '

2 KALAMMA    " 
W/O NA§1~APPA*--._...';-- '    »
AGE: 50Y_EA;Rs. '

BOTH BARE ‘£2/A’i”‘ i::CL.IN’DAKER1%:; \nL1’;AOI::
‘I’EFAKANAMBI HOBO, GUNDLUPE’I’ TALUK
PRESEN’l’1′.Y R/A_A;*:.’_, ‘ryAOA”5aAJA COLONY
NANJANAGUDU –. ” ..AjPPELLAN’I’S

[BY Ms.SE_JJA sL:”RENO1§mN”§OR”SR1 R.C.NAGA.RAJ.
ADv;)cA.’1’r::s.; .,

: ‘ ._’£’,s’.:9A’»KA:\:KU,MAR
n 8/0 *I’*.N.L’_S.R1’DHARAMURW
MAJOR. R20 NO859/B, :5″! CROSS
f3}’\£\€CZ«AI;C)’REw5O
DR1~x./ER OF TH E vi~:I~£:(:u.~:

M~.._RAMre:s1~1
” S/O MADAIAH
MAJOR, NO.1010, ;6mMA1N ROAD
HANUMANTHANAGAR, BSK If-*1′ S’I’AG£3
BANGALORI::~50

B ‘”:-‘.3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE: CO.

MANANDI COURI’, 134E313’/’:()§
27′?” CROSS. JAYANAGAR, 3*” BLOCK

B

M.F.A./Vo.4367/2009 and
Mr’sc,Cvi.1 1 1 65g2009

BANGAi..ORi3 — I 1
REP. BY US BRXXNCH MANAGER ..R’x’2SPONDEN’l’S

M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.I73{1) OF THE} M.V.AC’i’ AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.07.2()O’7 PASSED IN

MVC.NO.4~/2004 ON THE FILE OF’ THE? CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)–.”r._
NANJANGUD. PARTLY ALLOVVING THE CLAEM PETI’i’ION FQR._
COMPENSATEON AND SEEKENG ENHANCEMENT

COMPEZNSATE ON.

iVI1SC.CVL. is FILED U/8.5 OF THE I.IMi’i’A’i’i’_Cri\i Af_(_’7*1*”
PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF _:;4s._1)AYs iN”E?I’i.Ei\3’GV_’

THE APPEAL.

APPEAL AND IVEISCCVL. COMING c>V’N__i«*’c>R HEAR_IN'(3 c.>i\’i–:.”” A

I.A. THIS DAY. THE COURT DEI.iVE3RE’D..V’l’HfI 7Oi.’E.C)VV7lVN(§’}
Junemsfims
There is a delay of fizdre eig};1::”1n0nths [249

days) in filing the is filed

for c0ndo:f1atidfi” 1 héiiie heard the learned

counsel apAf;e2iring/,v.ff6fi1’t1*ie”—.s{ppe1lant.s and perused the

affidavit§;’fiIsed su’}§pc)i”i ef the app1icati()1’1. In my

‘V.Qpi’r1i.Q_ri._ the (._:”c1:__1._se shown is not sufficierii to coridone

of 249 days in filing the appeal.

A /.~\cC0rd’ing}yi. *:;Misc.Cv1.11165/2009 is dismissed.

Add”4CQ:r1’sa:quei*it1y, the appeal also stands dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sh}/»