High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri E Ramachandran vs Sri S K Sathybabu on 10 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri E Ramachandran vs Sri S K Sathybabu on 10 November, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
-u-v-uvsm- was nvfiunswrusrunvfi u an 'aura:

IN TEE E~§IC}I~¥ C383,')? GE KARRREAKA AT BRNG-ALGRE

BA$ED THIS THE 15" may 93 HOVEEBER, 2669

BE FGRE

THE HGN'BLE NR.JUSTICE HULUVRD§"GlRA§E§§' f--

CRIMINAL ExT:TIaNgR§}£§4§g2@§§T_ V=H

BE’£WF£E*%”

sax E RAHACHEHDRRN
5/G v.m.zKABAaa _ _W .1»
AGEB ABG$ 55 2333; ‘* ‘<'

NC.4058, B BLQCK,"5TH'£R¥fi3§ w-

mamxuaezem mm swarm, é
amsanoxmmsse _o1e,-V

'q~, ;;§ffiETzTzoNEa

(By smg_5,$§§§JniH§f§ g:£i3§}°ABvs ;

sax s'K4sAmHrBAsvfx
5,/0 & mm IflR.IS",z?E3LPF§".
A§EDLAaovT~3e wags,
Rffi aw QLB NG;25§f3~7,

'HE@_§m,7; EST CRQSS
*s;§,fi3Lxa,"gAxGALoaE ..

‘yffiy sifi E G L vzsawafiayag AB? 3
” GR.?.C BY THE

9 FILED {U8 . 482

-. Anvaawz E93 THE PETITIRER PRA3I§G THAT THIS
V»x*yQN*BLE CGURT may as BLEESEB Ta SET ASIBE 233
‘=_»Q3gER 33139: 19.93.2099″ 235329 3? TE xrv

X3?”

EESFGEDEIW

_. ..n….n..-um mun uvum ur nnxwninm Hlbfl LUUKI Ur :uumtAIAI\A mun LUUKI Ur Mmnntnnfl mt’-VI1 M-

ADDL.,C.M.H., B’LGRE, IN’ C.C.RG: 28519/2003
AND assraaz yum SAME we THE ORIGERAL EILE AER
fi1RECT THE TRIAL Cflfikf TD DISPSE THEgEa?TER
IN ACCORDANCE wxrn Law. gH @ a

THIS EETETIGN COEINE an se3{WA§§:$s:QH

‘1’.’F~§.’£S HAY, TEE CGIIRT mm TE-E ”

Ths patitianer ha§ iénfiht f¢:»,settin§”

aside the order dated_i$§3wggB%fi#&§g§d by the
XI? Add1.fi;$:M;;1i iuV #§ngalora in
C.€.No.28519{26@3Wfi§§ $afi§%£§;§h§ aama to the
ariging; @ii§%a$§:fi;r§ét %fié–txiai court ts

disp¢g§’¢£”fi§9 figffér fig ficcaxdanca with law.
2′ qggbrfl-V §h3 w£1a®rn&d asunsel for the

re3§ectiv§’p§xtieQi

V =S¥ Fig :ha impugned order, the learnad

L’.£3gi$§xat§”§ismiaaed the saga far default and

aisoéfsx”nenwpzaseeutian.

‘ ,§f§ fiacarfiing tn the learna& Caunaal far the

?petitioner tha comlainant was regular in

W,

*’ ‘ I|’€l I €Vl’¥I\’ ‘Tl I\I’Il\I’Il”If”II’\f’ I II?! I \.a\gI\JI\’ ‘I! i\f”I’\I””IIl’II\”I IIITII En’

attsnding the :2-mizst except one <31.' tweak
occasiena, hat: the accused himself waa absent.
It is suhmitteci that for not taking :'£:!e;e

impugnad arder: came to be paa3e<3..h__ %

5. Feruaed the order e:1i€=,et:;””vf I}:§aqfi:é;’t£ata

Ccmzct. To enable thCé_’p_etii:tE,:§nar T fi[a§V.Ji._p-.x%ne_ mcreV____:6pp<:2.x;tuz§;it1fV_ hgéfia to be

'afifcrded. In tixaV:7'ci£¢t:;n3f'a:n§é3, the impugned

order ia aeAtvasicie"»;t;1',1_e' 5.. restezeci
on tha_ _f:ht;« 1jA'x':ir """Aduitianaz cw,
Bange_:J_._Qrva.V i'f;€§1'.f– of the case in

aC3('3§::*__1:5:i.é'f£Z'zf'..gE: "V . ' '3._&W§. Accordi ngly; the

p@tit&§.'s:s;i is J

Sd/-

JUDGE

%mpxz’*