IN THE HiGH coum OF KARNATAKA. BANG.5{Lor2E “E L
DATED was THE 17:21 DAY 0!» Afi
PRESENT a _ _
THE HON’BLE MRS.
gum ‘ _ .’ ‘
THE HONBLE MR. Jvl}S;i;l.C~E’~K,E%i’.:IvKE$H§iANARAYANA
Misc; _F’~¥F§ST
BETWEEN
Ar_;E:24 vrzs.,cLEmE¥2. E
Rzc>«HucHAsmA EE9u<*2:3t3:vuLLAeE,
CHANNAPATNA~TA_LU.K E
EANGAn,o.'»2E Rure,AL«.ms?RacT APPELLANT
~ . _(By My MAHESHNARAPPA )
M5101' E A
1 X '~..CHAK'RAV€ARTHY BALLAL
NO}. GROUND FLOOR
* MAT;-RU KRUPA BUILDING
A OPPOSITE VYAUKAVAL POIJCESTATION,
~ : BANGALORE crrv
. E "OWNER OF LORRY SWARAJ MAZDA
"N0.KA-04.3194
2 SWAMY GOWDA
s/o SHANKAREGOWDA
c/o CHAKRAVARTHY BALLAL
No.7. GROUND FLOOR, v
MATHRU KRUPA
opposrre VYALIKAVAL A 'ESE STATION I
BANGALORE crrv, I " A
DRIVER or VEHICLE No.t<,e.«r.z4.31'94
3 THE uwrn-:0 INDIA
3.:-moan I
SHIMOGA’
TI-lIS'”IVIF)f’;,|S FAiLED’~lJf$ MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND-‘[A3NARDI._DATED: 3.9.2004 PASSED IN MVC
N0. 158/9.3 THE’FII…E”QF*-THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
& AMACT 32 CJM, ‘SHIMQGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHAMZEMENT-.QF”‘ COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT 9%
-A
I appeal coming on for HEARING, this day,
J, delivered the following:
J_U_D..9_M_E.bIl
V _V was no representation for the appellant when the
I’ was called in lhe first round and was passed over. Even at
T I V p.m. none represents when called.
Hence the matte: is dismissed for npn-proeécutéétiv.» *
V. E’\
:uage