Sri Nataraja Mudaliar vs Sri Muninarayana on 26 June, 2009

3§
~'r:§.
W
5%
&?
gfi
Q
%
gm
m
:3
$21?
£3
2%
Q
X
§
2»
Q
33?
3
Q
as
$
532
X
;E
3%
E
m
%
{LE
$5»
2%
53
Q
E

E

E
E
"fl

 

m'~'~_««'wm.%1 was" mmma~:é.a2 !§WMx-r€g,;-Rh »'z.fia3'§§~ f \ 5% $ V355' if fiV.g§M\3 9-'$5 -,§53E'|<E2 S)? (SW5: K17; '§''\"., ,2' E23: '3II 01-' INDIA
PRAYING.  oéman DT. 30.03.2005 In
nmcuncn c;asE%z§<3. 1997 on Tim ms or
 mamiankamrmm (mm. mam. (.m.nm 85
 AT naEvAmHmL1,vmE Alix-AAHD FUR'lTER
  Emm E)$CU'I10N CASE
:0.  Em.

 %  «HEAR3CIf€G"Efi_' *3' mvzcxmnns DA.Y,'I'HECC)UR'1"MADE

' - "i'he lagality and correctness of the ordm dated

    panaedby as can Judge (Ju::uor' um.' ' ion),
 Dmnahanun E:wmn:bnCase Ho.126of1997 in called

inquauiianhytlnjlxdfintdnbtnnbyfifingflfiswzit

W



pefitinn on 95.01.2003. The prmm: petition 
below. In the mum petition the dam» in   
1111': Court at . bexma stage an   
the petitionm-. It B no  
However, it is for the  the Court
autrmd an   the institution of

the am".  thin Court within a reaaonabb
   am on the ground of delay and James.

E
 .

%/:35

§
§
3
£3
£3

at
K
Y2?”
fi
.2
E
%
{:3
im
fifi

-:3
@
ié
335
%§
E
g
5%
:2
fig
§
fig
5?}
i>’«”=*
zésé
ii”?

13

$
$2.?
E
§
ffii
E
i;%§
:2
$13
..

sdl-.
111699

3%’-.€&’.?2 waw 1%