IN THE HIGH couarr or KARNATAKA I
czacurr BENCH AT DHARWA_[)~—-. _: 35]} 1′
DATED THIS THE 15?” Mg OE JilzJji.’i”,.7;’£).0*§ ”
BEFORE % R
THE HOWBLE MR. Jus’2″1cEMV’i~:V..[?u. _b1A€§AM§iFi’A¥§:’:§3AS
REVIEW PEfi~TIE3§4 jts:o.:4J.1:i:i;:’2ooa
BETWEEN: ‘ ” ‘
SMT. LAxM1BA1k;i;v/é*S%H1.r3-DAPFSA
AGE: 38 YEARS, A
occ: HOUSEHf3.Li3 w,or<2<+,ATr:;W
DIST: BELGAUM, % :PE:”T’ITIONER
(av sax. RA\«1s. ,vB!5¢I.._IaKVA’i”‘,
-1; :2AMAc:4’A;s:«z§’£aA s/0 TULMAPPA KALAL,
AG%E%.62 ¥§A9;sp%(‘
ace: aggsmezss,
R./0 EALEKUNDARGI,
TAL. &_D:.sT. BELGAUM.
:zA3;ARAM s/0 TULABAPPA KALAL,
‘AGE 59 YEARS,
: kfocc: BUSENESS
R/O RAMPUR SITE,
SAGNDATTI,
EISTI BELGAUM.
ZN)
3. SHIDDAPPA 5/0 RAJAPPA KALAL
AGE 45 YEARS,
ecc: BUSINESS,
a/0 YARAGATTLTAL: SAUNDA”¥TI,:’; – ._
DIST: BELGAUM. .:._’;’;;RESeP£)NDE’£N’T’:$__
(BY SR1. 9.5. AeTAKKANAvAe;iAev.Feetee)
R1 & R3 :SEi’-{VICE new Si}?-‘FI’C_I_’i£N’}’) * 1
mas REVIEW PETITION ‘1’S’FIL,EViDi~U!%DjERi ORDER 47 RULE :1
0? cpc PRAYING FQR RE\1IEW~,0i”»’_Ti-!E='{)RDER’/JUDGMENT ANS
DEGREE DATED 1V2.~:4~=2(30?’ PAe$s_e,:..rsz WP,$5168/O6(GM-CFC),
on THE FILE 0:: T’r§iE”HO3N’F.’y¥_E i-§’I€;ii~i7CQLJRT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. * ” .
THIS PETI1I§§isi'”V;.:{$i1o.15168/05. This Court whiie disposing of the
WP; had made it clear that the compromise
‘””1–5i.”f~.39e»cerded’xiefere the Lok Adalath is in accordance with the
A §teAnimi$sioner’s report submitted befere the Executing Ceurt. It
’11- .:i$._f§irther made clear that the share pertaining to the petitioner
uieas per the preiiminary decree in 0.8. No.52/94 remains intact.
Therefore, no prejudice had been caused t9 the petitioner in
gjwv