K Jayashankaramurthy vs Sri V Sreesh on 30 July, 2009

V~,::~:~;f.'s.{. "   maccusm

K x ' A' egntsgzgpt yetifion.

 ..__' G(}7i5ibA, J., made the fol§c}w:E11g:«

nu ma BEGH CQURT 0;: §{ARD§$,'E'A%L%£fl&'?'«   " 'V
DATED THIS "mg 30%: 3A§'.VQ::.5,§LV1L%'2:i0:é+   
PRE3:«:;§;%.T A V _A A'
THE; I~iGN'BLE $253.. \;Us':'%1."E':'E;€t E': A;§7;.§ §§§A§f§*f%1i1';évATsALA
.    

”” H 1 {C:mL)
BEfTWE§ P%; _ ‘A ‘ I
K.Jayashén.ké1amufil’%§%’.– * COMPLAINANT

(By El 8i3L];6f},Vt’1″i,’ ‘ Iidxaj

‘E’h7j¢$_ 3~Misc.W is fied under praying for ravivgi Gf iiim

Mis::.W coming 03:1 for ordfizrs, this day, GC}P,z%LA

. “i;m;v?f n T

it»?

3. F<"t€:ga1'6.i13g the deiay, at Paragragh N<3.'?'*0i"= "' 'V
the dekay caused in compiying with t£:§:

mentinnad.

4. We have perused the; samcgn—~ ‘

S. Acceptiag the kfghdeffid by the
accused regarding = r€Q;:€1p1§ance with the
order, we-, drop the campiainant to
chaflengc of e3§.u:ibi*’.§ :e2neni issued to him by

izlitiating

361/ ‘-2
Iudgé

S5/’2:

Iudcfé