Smt Kavitha W/O M Gajendra vs The State Of Karnataka Dept Of … on 20 July, 2009

IN THE-HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, %

mama Tms 'rm; 20m DAY or  T V; %  

mm I-IOITBLEI am. Jasmzis    " »

% wan' PETITION NO. 1vg)Ft2a§'?§s<i1sT;
BEPWEEN:  A  

SMT KAVITHA W1/0 MAc_:--.1a,.J:<",Ni3RA '  ' ' '
AGED 30 YER&S,'--_  :   

occ; Houssne-&DVw1'9E',;.
R/O MARI§E"F_RG-£d'}_, V ._ 
cH1iE'~R 51.13., 'm;';AALcR;61/200?-03

ANB ETC.   

THIS4._4PIi3I'fi'..{év1§J,"ff;OMlNG ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN :3' {}RO{JP, THIS my THE comm' MADE

 _ A TH£;;F0FL:.Qw:N%Gi= %%%% <4 ,

ORDER

. ” is filed mlfing in question the notice

datéd. 13.200′? Armexure D of the 4&3 respondent

V’ calling upon the petitianer to file expIa:r1ati<m

oiéer Why action sheuld not be initiated to evict her

from the premises in question. g g

35%,

, ,='
$2.-"

2. The petitioner instead of

reasonable queries raised by the

explanation, has come mshingg to ‘I;.’1.eiS_cri)u1?_t’::’te

the said notice.

3. The writ liberty
to the petitioner to to the notice
Annexure dciyrie, ‘period of 15 days
from today, to consider the same

and pass <3AIt'a5(=::$s..V;:§i;.ric*i"«.14§f;"-jnaecordanee with law.

Sd/'4," :

Judge ;

eegw