High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Ananda Rao vs Sri K S Mani on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Ananda Rao vs Sri K S Mani on 3 June, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
I
ma
an'
an

§

IN THE H§GH cxmm' 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGA,I.,Q:§jE_T'-w--,,A

DATEI3 THES THE 3&9 new 0;? JUNE -2;::a:§«:99  '   * 

35:1-"2023   

THE HONBLE MR.JUSFICE   

M.F.A.NC).1';!:1'4é?/§'{}v{iS. A    "

BE'i'WEE24i:

1.S,ANANDA RAG,   _ 
S/O.LA'I'E,SA'FY€;'=J£ RAG BERJFsE_,

vs ms.   V
2.A.;AU<}I~i'I"ER C}E«S.:%,;$1£J€£?A"Rf1Q;  

46 YRS. . APPELLANTS

BOTH ARE'R/AT§Noa4«:4.{21«;2;,' 
32:» $12033, 3:31" MAE.N',=  ..  '
V,R.PURAM, ?;~;1gm::§;:g GEJTEAPMLLE,
BAN€}2§L.<}RE -~ 566: £103'. '

'  é "-a§*;5»s;r2;z ir~:.=s=sAfiJA?'Gow3A§A3v.:

:.x..S,§fiAN:3\' . --  .
f§S[C3.L2¥E'E..§§UP¥FUSWRMY,

 ¢ 69 YRS, 132:3.-1, 3&9 CRGSS,

~  " « ._1'$*' MAN, '%.r'.._£3§. PURAM,

 ' ?;=sLa.C;*§A GU'I"I'AE~§A§..§..E,
 E§:gzx:»:i;A_';;QRE W 360 £293,

  V2.;§;a:,:{R:s§4NAM:;RTH¥,
-4, "ms,:*1*HER*s NAME 12:0'? KNCJWN, 55 ms,
 , 'N<::.21;2, 33» CiRG$S, gsr zvzmz,
" "vie PURAM, PALACE GU'I'T2'aHALLI,

BANGALOQE -»~ 563 003.



I
N
fill

3.A,SF, VR Pqfggrasg, . '

PALACE GUTTAHAL?;E,v_  _  .  =
BANGALoREm5§3'{:Q§_'--      pzgspommgwrs

{BY SR} smf:é';_ra.§R'A¥ANA.jT'1-égia3égzjixff;  '

~.  _§Mi_n-'

'm:$'~:~g:_.:4'.:;, :3._;i*:§;;::';::§_":-,--.I§fC>.%3 RULE (2; gr; 0:2' CFC, &GAINS'}'
THE €;§DaR"--«nA*m:D._ :~:m~.:';2eGs FASSED cm: i,A,NO.3. IN

_0r$,N;:2,;f$So:5;2a0% '£325: THE; 53,9: :3? 'viii A:,>:>;'r:c::NA1;, cm? (EVIL

 A;:e3._3V €:'sE3. S£<'§£7i.?*»}'é.£-§ ...,;u1'3c";E';"§;a1~s<::A:.<3RE, {<:<::~:,1~«:. 153., ALLOWING EA
 }'§'iLEEi u"g<";._:§,i9: :~'»::_;L;2:.. 1 ARE} 2 C96 FGR 11:.

Nigfiizg.-.~§§§2=2:AL GGMENG are FOR ADMISSECIN TEES DAY,

 n _ 'cgum g:2.§:igfaIEreE;:2 THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMEKT

Learned counsei appearing far msmndent No.1 has

 "filaed Q§f}j€Ctiii)I1.S in Cam': ioday to I.A.N9.§/2{)C%8 and the

same is piaced em mconi,



:2. Sri Saz1ja§'* Ckzwda, ieamed Cozlzmfii apmaairirg {by

the appelfantfi submits that in the fight of the 

made by respondent N9} in the objections $tz:é:'{}31'z1<*::1"i:',"'1;:"é.§%_iT 

appeal has became immctuous.

3. Accordingly, the appeal ii-3:» __ €?:.’§.SI1}i{°§S6_2I_3 ‘:’;i;;’§ ‘~ n;;;;::;g,

became inimctuous.


Appea} dismissfizd.  '_

  ; ,x    Judge

*n1v$