Smt Hema vs Shivaji Danappa Sarvi on 28 May, 2008

IN THE HIGH comm or-' KARNATAKA,BANGf:AL{) R E:    _

DATED ms THE 28?" DAY or MA\.t;i:1p_s77.fj  T4 _: "

BEFORE V  
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST|Cf:_,§i;B}LLAFPA'_  X

 .;%m%m$m§m * «
Bmmmem "  ' '

LSMTHEMA   '
WlO.JAC~':ANNATH     .4  
AGED51YEARS,HOUSEHOLE;,i;__.'     
RIO.MUNAVALLt,TQ:SAUNE3AT'F§    _   V
DISTRICT BELGAUM.    >  ".--..__Pi.'&'Tl'?TIONER
(BY sm: LAXMAN mANTAc;AN'1*1 Eon PETR). ' 1-

AND :

AGEGQYEARS,
RIOMUNAVALLL _

Ta:sAuNDA'm; '  _ _
D:sI:'BgLGA1.;'M:.    ..... 

1. S}-itVAJiDANAPPA §A;2v: '  " L4

2. .aȤ;r3AreN:A1tH_ .,   ~
520 DAi'~£_AP'PA saaw - "

 AGED svwfemzs,   
 Qcc; ausnszsss, - '-
' v._mo.vMuNAvAu_.:,

« --.T§::sAU:s;oATTt. ~~ _ 

%3;'S§aN§{(A.F5PA 310

« ~ .. ' DAN)? PW; aaavi
V. A_Cr;;R'Mt=> BOCTOR,
E?i{}.AGHAW'NANA COLONY,

. '   V samsasaa, HUBLI.

 ~ V %  £r.Mc5n~§AN SURESHBABU SARVI
ACEED 33 YEARS, occ::Aovc>cA"rE,

RIQMUNAVALLI,
TQ:SAUNDATTi.

htfl'



5.RAGHAVENDRA SURESHBABU SARW
AGED 35 YEARS,

RIOMUNAVALLI,

TQSAUNDATTI.

6.SANDHYA @ SANKAMMA
w:o.sHR:DHAR CHADACHAL _
R!O.MUNAVAi.Ll,     
TQ:SAUNi3ATTl_  ";;..RE',SPO!>£DEN_:'S 

ms wan" PETITION IS man UNLSER ;éR"rit:t.E;~: 1A?A'23.'.ANvv[Z)"V?2i'?'VV:A(5f§'

THE CDONSTITUTION OF !1\iDlA PRAWNG TC} SE-IT A$If3Ef'.THE' iMPUGNED7 
ORDER DATED 31.3.2008 iN O.S.N«'3.35!2006 {3'N |.A.NC':*.V V!i'3E._ANNEX,D.-_ '

PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUGQE ..{,.lR.DN.}' --.SOUDATTi.

This Writ Petition owning qn--f:§i"F?r飧mina'r3}'i-Eaarirség this day,
the Couzt made the foilavziflg:  ~._ V. 

In this.   and 227 of the
 as in question the order
dated  ML court in O.S.No.35l2006 on
I.A.No.\};*  % %     '

. ' -'.2,   No.4 filed LA.V praying to permit him

 V'  - up fé$§'flié'Awritte'n  %%%%% " 'V t. The trial court taking into c¢nsiderat:on'

 is delay in fiiing the writtm statement, as the

firdéf  defendants 5 and 6 expatte has been set aside'

 andfgpfianunfly has to be given to them to me the written

A 51' "  has given opportunity to respondent No.4 aise to fife the

statement on payment of cost. I do not find any error or

iflegaiity in me order passed by the tria! court. ‘rhem§§ra7,V%%%z:gLkmy

considered view, there is no merit in thisjigtiflon itfis

liabieto bedismissed. j

3. Accordingiy. it is di§misse;d,_ A.

% :; k%37t:s.dge