Mr B Jayaram Nayak vs Mrs Surekha on 31 October, 2008

Between:

1

IN THE HIGH comm 01? KARNATAKA AT  

DATED THIS THE 318'? DAY OF' OCTOEISRQ 2£j'r£¥%%8%  ' 'L

BEFORE';

THE H0N'BLE MR.JUS';f:::E L NA§eAYAN.A  _

R P No.13v9,?_2GO8 V
:15: wP.fz.5 1f;'06--. _

MR BJAYARAM NAYAK -- _ .   
s/0 LATE 8 MANJUNA"I"H  '
AGED ABGLIT'5?SYEARSg  " 'V 

R/AT ::30Q1?--1>:0éj3_-_<+3/3,13:-,__  if;
NEAT ST;i+.N'r:3--NY'  ,   .

CHURQEH,' --IT§g}j;'REA";*§aE;;:fi§IANC;AD'x'
DH       . ;

MRS TH;A_RA.MA'F_H'f~ S   '
W/O B JAY&RAM -NAYAK
AGEB 40 YE:',R_S" " '

R_h'{T DOOR NG"3.~.4r3,!3j3

' . - NEAT '$3? ANTONY CHURCH, UJIRE

 » _B'ELfI'i:;,,{x';'~x:<3=_ai::1_,_

 PEIFITEONERS

(B*:j:sR_1.~}"=' '_§%..H[EGDE, ADV.)

~  :M__D-»:

 ratjrééj SUREKHA

"AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

  W/0 SATHISH,

' "R/AT DOOR NO 4-51

KOMARAHKFHLU,
NIBLE VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY, DK



U)

fiiT'St respondent is the eister of the first petitioner  has

3130 passed 8 S L C. Therefore, the PDS iieense:”wae::ee%1eii11:ie(i

in the name of the fuet respondent.

3. The eentemion of the 1 V’
reepcsndent is also not entitled Viexe ef
the fact that she has also ‘1.ivi;«’tfi§’ee”1i§4’are”£e13;,’. The
said fact has been denied for the f}I’8t
respendent and alee AfiI§eem*e–R3 stating that
she is reeidiflé The iearned Government
Pieader j V’VI”‘eI1sildar has made erxquiiy
about the eiafile of the firet respondent and
t’1f;ereaf’£;e.1f’ 99.13.: tile’ £i.,eei1}.seV:wee issued in her favour.

ijeiitioners have not shown to the Court as to how

they ‘-e:a”‘V’.1″:e1(i the license in their favour. Therefore,

there is $10 groufid to review the order.

,, R::x;iewNPetitjo11 is rejected.

Sd/-

Judge

.fa1«;d*