Suryanarayan vs Puttaswamy @ Kishore on 30 July, 2009

§fi.A.No.1§_5_4,{2004
J U D G H E If T

This appeal is of the year 2064. The order-sheet5§_:’e~.V_

ref.’

for previous dates of hearm’ g reveal? that the

and his counsel have not been

this appeal. Today aiso, thisV’é,ppealV’§u*e$*,

On both the occasions, file
remained absent No Tixerefem, this
appeal is dismissed for ” order
shall be

Sd/~
EUDGET

Shl/-»

4″ “7v**””‘”‘” gar,

Sh}/–

Cfl.A.£j_Q,1454.{20U§
J U D G E E N T ‘ ‘
This appeal is of the year 2004. The
‘ dlkevious dates of
appellant and his counsel have 11232;
prosecuting this appeal. Today
(tailed twice. On both the
his counsel remained ~Né:-.LA.re§;§fesenteifion.
Therefore, this appfiéil for non»-

L7

.§ jfl=JUDGE