Sri C M Chandregowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2009

' under Order 2 Rule 2 of the C0c1_6:....Q_i_"  ii 

having lost in the earlier round. Indeed, this eomention
was available to the petitioner in the earlier proceedings.
He having not taken up this contention in the 

proceedings, to my mind, it Wouid eperate__--ais" 4:15.' .

Indeed, in an identical ease  VI;
SEVASHRAMA (REGD), eA1ie;iLeee u  
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS _  Qeesgi) 
S5 1, I have taken a viexié" is availabie
and if it is net   io have been
waived. It  " ij   i V 

"In<1ee_',e;re.sent 'peeeen is filed in the year 2004, ie,
 of nearly 6 years to invoke the
_ of Section 27 of the Act. As has been
 iiby the Division Bench of this Court
wfiieil is extracted earlier, Iie apparent reason is
 I ifertheorning as to why the petitioner did not
ieiioose to invoke the said provisions which was
available to him mach earlier. Incleecl, this would
be a Case under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil g



Pmeedure Code, 1908 though may not be strictly

appiieable to the present proceedings, i11asn1ueh

as, a contention which was available to  _.__ A' 

was not taken up. Indeed, it would operate  ' "

judieata. "

3. M1'.G.R.Ramesh, 1eaI"';1e<}._§':o1V22fise'1 
the respondent beneficiary  £10 the