®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN
DATED THIS THE 231*» DAY or FEBRUA§§':,V:'2h€a§iV(}-. R
BEFORE
THE HoN*BLE MR. JUs'rICE"ARAV:ND
we
CIVIL REVISION PE'II3'IOaN.1\:¥C)z. 35 eFj 20: " A
BETWEEN :
I.
having its registere'ri_Vbffice__a:t,
No.4. Bankshall S-treet; .4
Koikata
The Tirlplate Comfiahy bf
The _ DVf"Ir1d fiaVvLimited,
hay:-ing.Ait's. brétn.eh"--Qffi.ce at" V "
N O_ . F'--8,_ Nix.» 10; * .I?aiaee___R0ad,
13th Main, Va$a.nthna,ga__r,
Bangalore --~5e»o'r052.'er "
Both Pefitiorier and 2 are
'Rep_r:esented"herein by its
« _ _ "C01i2pa_riy._ Secretary.
' j' }\.![r';v-.Sudd1.1afr3rata Kar.
'E-Byv--..Sri; P. Kumar, Sr. Counsel for
" s. King and Partridge, Adv.)
Banu Steel Industry.
N 0. 139-A, Metagalli Industriai Area,
Mysore, represented herein by its
.. Petitioners
6. The matter came to be subsequently adjourned to
18-3-2004. There afterwards the suit in
referred to supra came to be adjourned
arguments on 5-41-2004, 28;i"5:2004_l,"<._ a'ndT~.._
28-6~2004. Thereaftervvards the
to 8-752004. On the said set
down for further argu1r1en;'tsi:_ engaged
another counsel and along with an
application undeidi -..Procedure Code to set
aside the placing the
defendanltdsdldly on 6~--9--200-4
defendants tiled tmV(o.'.lir1wtle'r1.ocstory applications under Section
15}. CFC, fordstayyol' sltliitlvand under order 7 Rule I1[d) of
'Civil V-Procpedulre c¢derri'for rejection of the plaint as being
b'arred'lirriit:atioj.n respectively which came to be numbered
-- it as The application filed under Order 9 Rule
Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed on l~l2-2004 and
matter was posted for hearing on I.A.No.7 and it was
V. --.ad}0'umed to 184-2005. Thereafterwards from time to time
$f,,/
Code or under Order 7 rule 1 1 and or filing objections to the
P.i\/Iisc. would not amount to petitioner waivingright
inasmuch as it is a mandatory obligation cast._:onf_ith'e'iCo.urt«.,,_._
to exercise its power under Section'8'of".th-'e; A_ic't.uand_refeI"~.. "C
the parties to arbitration. He wou--.ld7aiso
there is any delay in filing defeat
the mandatory provisio:n».._of Age draw the
attention of this Court in the revision
petition to Court below was
inclined to filed under Section 8 of
the Act _ and it is contrary to the
provisionsof' Act. He would submit that
immediately (Sn, suit "being registered, the application
uVr"id.er" came to be filed and any statement made in
proceedings cannot be taken note of while
deciding o'r'adjudicating the application under Section 8 of
Act. support of his submission he would draw the
of this Court to the judgment in the case of
C Dkashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and another Vs Verma
12
by the revision petitioners and there was no whisperp about
the Arbitration clause invoked by the revisionfpetitioners
and she draws attention of the Court to
objection statement to contend the
revision petitioners is to be constriiedlas thel..ifi1{st lstateurnent
made which is referable to Section 8 andshe' contends that
defendants have acceptiedfi thernselves to the
jurisdiction of the Civil
10. She' wotiid';'--a1so_V--co;1tend5that after the ciismissai of
the retspiondentvhad filed revision petition
in CRP also not contested by the
present revision» pet-i_ticner..-7 When the said revision petition
..~ allowed b},r..this Court by order dated 19-1 l~200l
'r.eview"vpetition..was filed in RP 7212/2004 to recall the
eai'lier"lordeiefdated 19--l1-200l whereunder the plaintiffs
were perriiitted to continue the suit in the capacity of in
.__I'ori1:;al"'1oat1peris. Even in the said review petition she
..__contends that revision petitioners herein had dwelt upon the
__4lli'i1erits of the case and thus the revision petitioners are to be
-
14
their first statement by fiiing objections to P.Mis(: and
traversing on merits of the case, they have given up their
right to seek for arbitration. She would submit the
objection filed to P.Misc particularly
the revision petitioners have delved upon tt’iie…r:I1.eriits’–oI” the
case and there is no mention about.:the’~ai9bitiration
11. She would also subriiit””~thatV. if.registratioriof the
original suit -is to be .{;”ori_sti’i1led”‘ ljt.li.e starting point for
Limitation then filing of appiieation i:Q__’i.der 7 Ruie 11(d}
has to be construetiias first statemjen’tw.1i_nder Section 8 of the
Arbitration Apt.’ attention of this Court to Section
3(2}(ii) of to contend that moment the
suit by presenting the petition in
‘pau.peifis;tli.e suit is said to have been filed. She would
submitithat” the revision petitioners submitted to the
..l_lj’_f.,jtidicial “a_t:’thority namely the Civil Court by filing several
appiieations, the revision petitioners are deemed to have
V. the right to invoke the arbitration clause.
er”
16
culminating of the suit itself. Hence, it cannot be construed
as supplemental proceedings.
I3. She submits that from 1Q96__till revision» in
petitioners have filed application, afterl’ ap.p’lications.f7and
protracting the proceedings has’: been1Arigl’rt1y”; taken’
note of by the Court helow _ the “application filed
under Section 8 of the ground of delay
and supports below. The
judgment of relied upon by
the learned.-»cout1nlsel1 for is also relied upon by
reference to paragraph 34
and 42 to ‘contend-__th.at*…in the said case they had not
subm_ittedton_ the” ~ jurisdiction of Civil Court and had
lspecificallyi their rights.
14. vSri;I\l§ohd.Saddiq, learned counsel appearing for
ieurelsypondent’ “No.3 would contend that after the disposal of
4’_:t3:_R}?.ll2E3″?–3/1999 on 1941-2001, the revision petitioners had
i -:’f’1led’lthe review petition No. 722/2004 which came to be
Q”
I7
rejected on l9–l I-2004 to contend that in the review “petition
the revision petitioners had taken up a specific__’4cont’enti.on
that they had a case on merits to be adjudicate_d
such the revision petitioners t the id.
jurisdiction of the Civil Court, _ Reiterating v”w:as’i’js.tateEl
by Smt.Vidyu1atha he would P.Misc
is to be construed as to Section
8 of the Act. He would Article 137 of
the Limitation of the present
case inasmtrcll having accrued to the
revision been exercised Within
three years vvlienl apply seeking appointment of
arbitrationgcornirwenced lvnaniely in the year 1996. Having not
could not have invoked Section 8 and thus
clearly applicable to the facts of the present
case. “”‘-Elev-..’v%oti’ld also contend that third plaintiff and third
not parties to the Arbitration agreement and
the said clause cannot be invoked particularly when
T -«’..the’third plaintiff being a proprietary concern.
M
18
15. In reply Sri.K.P.Kumar, learned Senior .p’C-ounsel
would draw the attention of the Court to
namely the plaint in O.S.No.4463/20HQ2″l-Lpmticniarlyl
paragraph–3 to contend that plaitntilffs if
admitted third defendant is only a pr*oforma neceslsaryr
‘party to the suit though substaritial reliefisfclairnedlllagainst
only defendants 1 and attention
of the court to para l1 that
plaintiffs thems’el\kes1.’halre first plaintiff and
third plaintiff fie would also submit
that at of the Limitation Act
does not the Arbitration Act, 1996 is
a self ccn.tained».:lC0de the starting point for filing an
‘-‘:’ap’pi.icatiori’lunder Section 8 of the Act commences only after
:’in_stitt:t’ed a suit and before the first statement is
it ‘met: and not’earlier to that.
t He Wflulé also submit that Section 3(2)[i1′) of the
__Litnit;:41tion Act is to be construed only for the purpose of
fgckoning the date of filing of the suit and only for the
6%/,
I9
limited purpose of application of the Limitation Act_.._a_.nd not
for being considered as to whether it is a suit orwotlpi-erwise
and as such the initiation of the suit by filing–‘f’:;’Misc”peti:tior1
would not and cannot be construed'”a’s«ha*-‘ring institu-tedyinthei T it
suit. With reference to the contention’-_raised_-by the
counsel for the respondent “delay he
would rely upon the juvdgnflienti’in’*.t.lieuicase Sriiitagavendra
Advertising and Proprietor, Sri
Ragavendra I Advertising Vs.
Prasara V. Corporation of India).
represeirited’_’li Director, Commercial
Broadcasting_Sertfie¢i:_’All” India Radio of Madras High
Court iieeportuéd-diri”20(5′?-3(5) MLJ 1602 by drawing attention
to” andmli4 to contend that even if there were to
be written statement said aspect need not
V be examiziedor looked into for the purpose of considering an
under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As
_’_AiAa1*iI.Vaitem.atiVe submission he would submit that even
i -«’..::a’s’suming Article 137 is held to be applicable to right to
W
20
apply under Section 8 of the 1996 Act accrues onlygafter an
action is brought about by the plaintiffs by Zsuit
before a judicial authority and the hbe–enV’
instituted on l8«-7~2002 (registeringuitllas..vO,S-{Afrom~?’§lVli_st:.} it
the application was filed on .?.j7_–5–2i305′–whichl.–“istwell
time and hence the order pthellapplicationlll passed
by the Court below is Lastly he
would submit thatif the the order of
the Court below,’ given the liberty
to file written? the suit on merits and
proceed would also submit that
as per 4 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
Code the suit tolhave been instituted on presenting
Rules contained in Order VI and
suifiimons having been served upon the
1V”defendant should have been accompanied with the
Accordingly he seeks for allowing the revision
21
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether in the facts and circuxnstanoes-.__of the
case can it be held that defenda1its.._l’have
submitted their first statement on
of the dispute?
Whether the revision 4″..p:et.itioner.; . liisatisiy’ ” V t the
ingredients of Secti.on..i»8 of vthe..AAirh’i’tVration
Conciliation Act, ‘w_hich”‘ -in would
entitle thern t-o:’seel_< forvvrefereiice to Arbitration?
{ii}: anialication under order Vli
Rule «be supplemental proceedings
Section' 94 Civil Procedure Code or
othelrwise? A.
.(iii}.,A_v”~WAh”ether Article 137 of the Limitation Act is
.””‘;ip}ili’c’able to the facts of the present case?
(iV}, ‘_A’1~ Whether the suit instituted under Order 33 Rule
it 1 in forma pauperis is to be construed as the
starting point for limitation for invoking Section 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996?
l
reads “as tiiider;
\-» II
2.2
(V) Whether the order passed by the Courtwiibiieilow in
rejecting the application filed under«~~Sectio’n_:V8.tof
the Arbitration and Conciliation 1986 suffers
from any legal infirmity’?~~
(vi) What order?
18. in order to appreciateixthve ‘r\ival..con,tentions raised
by the parties it wou1ti”‘-bieT.of%n?ecessVa1jfto extract relevant
provisions of Arbitratior3.=A’ct,::”:} referred to as
the Old Act)?’-. of Arbitration 8.:
Conciliation -{hereinafter referred to as the New
Act).
181. ofithie Act and Section 8 of New Act
se5E{3fi’34
Section 8 of 1996 Act
F
4; ‘534. fevrerv to stay legal
p2’.,c>’t:e:.=-._di13{‘gs where there is
_’an”~arbitration agreement :-
._Where any party to an
“8.Power to refer
parties to arbitration
where there is an
arbitration agreement:
M
24
were commenced, and still
remains, ready and willing to
do all things necessary to the
conduct of the
such authority
proper
arbitration,
may make an order staying
the proceedings.”
commenced or continued
and an arbitralj”‘–.award
made.”
.,.,__7_J
18.2. The present suit was by
presenting the piaint under Order 33
Rule lof Code of Civil ProCedi’ire”wthiVeh’. as under:
“I. by indigent
person-::_”to the following provisions,
pmy suit’ ‘instituted by an indigent
person. _
. t ” . V V”{E§xpZnnVatton I person is an indigent person —
~_ not possessed of sufficient means
(“other than property exempt from attczchrnent
” in execution of a decree and the sulqjectw
matter of the suit} to enable him to pay the
fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such
suit, or
are
25
(b) where no such fee is prescribed, U” he is not
entitled to property worth one thozzsa:ndj:”‘,,A
rupees other than the property exe’n§;ptj’roffn:A »
attachment in execution of a decree;
subjectmatter of the suiftfm A
[Explanation II ~ Any propertyhhugvhflrh h
by a person after they:presenta_tio’n–7 of: his
application for perrnission’–«to”L_:saet.as aninciigent
person, and before application,
shall be taken into. in”‘co”i’i§s’ic:iering the
C1U~€Sii0n :j()Tg is an
indigent, V
VA3′–«~, Where the plaintgff sues in a
repre’::.en«tatiueVhcapmity;r.the question whether he
is an indigent’ persohnhshall be determined with
rgjference to the vrnerins possessed by him in such
.4 ., _capac:h’.ty
II_o’1′:hn§’Lxi1’i;1itation Act, deals with Bar of Limitation in
_:h_lAt’–«.V.rueSpect of Vsi’;1’ts appeais and applications which reads as
* under, %
fl/
26
Part II
Limitation of suits, Appeals and applicat.i_os1is:44t:’*5~ 3
“3. Bar of Limitation –
(1) Subject to the provis’ions_A_i “conitained«.
Sections 4 to 22,? *{1′._nclusia)e],.
instituted, appeal
made after .the__ prescribedjperiod shall be
dismissed not been
set uP€r51_udejénc%?} “ii
(2) the
fa) a___- — -i
” l case, when the plaint is
presenteidl the proper officer;
i x{ii)x Vin””the_,case of a pauper, when his
ilapplicaiion for leave to sue as a
pauper is made; and
i .. ifiiiji in the case of claim against a company
which is being wound up by the court,
when the claimant first sends in his
claim to the official liquidator;
28
“As regards the effect of a party’s failure to invoke
the arbitration agreement by way of such a tiin’ely
request, it seems clear that article 8(1)
that party from invoking the agreement *
subsequent phases of the court ‘-ltd’
may be noted that the Working
wide support for the View of
party should preclude relianceihon the “gagreeriiejnt
also in other proceedingspjr:_conte2i:ts’«decided not
to incorporate a V general effect
because it would be a simple
rule which with all the
aspects -oi? ” V _ f
18.5. The of the New Act has been
enumeratedgby I43i.”S,ii4BachaWat which read as follows:
s_ection”is~’based on the principle that the
right’iio’~_sfie’e.k arbitration is a contractual right and
be unilaterally abrogated so as
‘to overthrow the arbitration clause. Under this
sectiion, the judicial authority does not restrain the
A Vliplaintiff {a party to the agreement) from bringing
action in breach of his agreement with the
defendant (the other party to the agreement). On
fl/,.
29
the other hand, it is only on the defendant
exercising his right to go in for arbitration that
the jadiciai authority makes the partiesy:””‘to
abide by their contract and contract V H
them to arbitration.
(Emphasis suppiiied it
Failure of the defer1dant”to”eXercise it
would lead to an inferericeof anhxagreed _’if:oridii’etV’of
the parties to sup_erseder..orA’abatidori”thee terrns of
the agreement, Ves_tirrgivii.thev-judicial authority
with jurisdiction to including
matters which required arl5itr’a.t_ior1. The judicial
authorityifl haidjudicate upon the
disputes.’ It’ii’oes._.r£otV.enjoy suo motu power of
reference to arbitration. ”
{Eiilphiasis supplied by me)
in question is with regard to the
‘sub–Section (1) of Section 8. The author in
his hoo.k”‘V.AaboVe referred has anaiysed sub~«section (1) of
Seetieri Sand in the words of the author it reads as under:
I
42
mentioning any figures. This defendant th1’Q1;1gh
his counsel issued a reply dated I6~–»O3_:’1.9f9f_6;w._
reiterating that the agreement entered .
between this petitioner and defendant,»fihasfbeéen
acted upon by this defendant”‘andg_ is
petitioner who had violated’ th_’e’*fvte–rm_:s
agreement and failed tovrnaiie payr’nent’foVrVVthe Vi
goods supplied.”
24. The application’ for plaint came to
be filed under Qr:ier._7 Procedure Code. The
said app1ica§tio’n««._Vii»Tas__ an affidavit of the
company whereunder itfvvasfvcontended as follows:
“I submit . in-. of the piaint, the
p1ainti_ff/opponent hfasfstated as hereunder “the
action”‘fo’r”the suit arose 13-3-1991
*i::>ei’r.1g of meeting of the plaintiffs and the
ffgfv.__the°”defendants I and 2 at Bangalore
City, or1’]sfA8’«fIO–1991 being the date of plaintiffs
‘*-.,purcha.si1ng of the sick Unit from the third
if ‘Cfdefendant, on 4»~11–I991 being the date of
— ‘intiniation as to the purchase of the sick unit by
_,i.the plaintiffs to defendants I and 2, on 27»/12–
4/
44
limitation and therefore, the same is liable to-_’_be
rejected in limine without going into the _of_
the case”.
25. Subsequently when ;the_Co.urt the;
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 for :’noI}_payInen_t
the matter had been taken
to 3 herein in CR? 2673 ‘»was.lallov.red§ on 19-1 1»
2001, against which -‘vfivas filed in RP
N 0.’? 22 / 2004, l petitioners herein
had sought’ order passed in
CRP.No.2873._Zl§9§Ef:.; it
25.1. These read together it emanates that
at thejfirst. instanjoethe revision petitioners did not raise a
1″‘V.plea.yal.:outAptheaetrbitration clause. In the pleadings above
merely the pleadings which can be
szonstrued’-.VA as supplemental inasmuch as the revision
have delved upon the merits of the claim itself.
of the revision petitioners is that they have taken
themselves of the risk of dwelling into the merits
45
particularly with reference to the objections to the P.Misc.
naznely paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as referred to..j’=.lfn_l’these
paragraphs revision petitioners not only delved’:iip’on””–‘thf:
merits also but have reiterated, ~~th_e the.
defendants on the basis of the :”agr:e_’e1nentsV;A’
noticed that when responderltsherein the
proceedings had got issued their
counsel on [26–3-19£V33’6}:fi several demands
thereunder. E\feiii.n notice namely
reply notice whisper made by
the revision’ arbitration clause. These
facts clearlygo the revision petitioners being
fully aware of the releyant arbitration clause namely clause
.26.Qi’l”thé.”i3gfeement””referred to supra had not pressed into
given a complete go by to the same.
26.EB;e that as it may, when the proceedings came to be
_by the respondents herein, by filing suit for
recovery of money by instituting suit namely suit along with
application under Order 33 Rule 1 to sue as an indigent
W.
46
person came to be resisted by the revision petitioners and
took advantage of the order of dismissal and thereaI’terwards
without raising any ground whatsoever
number of years to have the “‘rex1isi(3n hpetitiori-.i’toVi”-be’f it
culminated and even the said order:iwher11″it_A.we1it”
them and 1n favour of the resporident. herein fanidéthisi Court
permitted the petitioners.theraxjflft?”proseciiter their suit in
forma pauperis filed a No. 722/2004
and suffered an.-order review petition.
The dates as above clearly goes to show
that hiaivevivconsciously Waived their
right to seek for r’efere’ncVe*-.to”arbitration.
wo1*ds_n_se;d in Section 8 are “when submitted
“‘1l1ii’s;fi:’st »staten”m_nt on the substance of dispute” is to be
readwiith conf_ij}i.f1Vcti0n with the object with which the Section
has corn.e’W.into effect which can be classified as two fold
47
(i) to ensure the parties to the lis settle
their dispute at a faster pace; _
(ii) to urge their right by iny;skizig…’..jj _
covenant in the agreement __
the Court to bind:-“the. the
covenant with which
upon.
These two covenants are requili-e:c’I’vto”i)e satisfi-szdiigy the party
who seeks to invoke” “the ,c1ause and not
otherwise. It .visl’in_ the’ Hon’ble Supreme
Court in while considering
whether~~aV he”‘vvVpi:ecluded from filing an
application’ inhthe event of lis dwelling upon
the Inerits’—,of- the in an incidental proceedings
«”,cons_.1d«ered and carne–«to a conclusion in the negative. The
examined with reference to the facts of
thetcase be held against the petitioners, inasmuch as
the petitioners had an obligation to the Court to which an
‘~applic”ation was filed seeking reference to arbitration and
.___”‘.dernand for binding the other contracting party to adhere to
M
52
of the Code would lie to this Court as against
the decisions rendered by the Civil
Because of these facts and circumstances’
the law being as iaid down by the
Court in the decision reported in
497. it has to be held that:”1this_’Ccourt.
exercise its revisionai jtirisdictionddunderd
115 of the Code.
12. In View of .foregoing.VjVreasons, I hold
that these revision p;_eti’tions are not
mmntainabigiin this :;c.5urt,:’:;:idu.re§’ect them.”
In View of the_si.’:i.ii’ie the learned counsel for
the petiv:ioners’?.vbi_c:1i% is effect that an application {fled
under Section is to be construed as a
sup;iieIIi»entaIa proceediiigs cannot be accepted and same is
question No. IV is answered holding
fsfiblication under Section 7 Rule 11 would
_ not Be avsupialemental proceedings.
Coming back to the core issue that “first
-edstaitement on the substance of the dispute”, I am of the
ex
54
material is as to whether the petitioner has
filed his first statement on the substance of the
dispute or not, if not, his application 11r1’der
section 8 of the 1996 Act, may not be
unrnaintainable”. it it it”. it
(Emphasis suppliegl ‘by me} = .1: it
It has been held by the H0n’b1e ‘a:bove”‘*–.A I
case that it has to be ascertainegi inihe factsiof cach..’3case,as
to whether petitioner has filed’-the.._V_first’ stateniient on the
substance of the dispv1ite70r’–not;; iii effect means, if
merits is touched updn”–iii Vsaid_’app’1i.cation filed under
Sectionvihtiiotihieid as not maintainabie. In
the seen that revision petitioners
have4;de1*.red rrierits of the case in respect of the
inmthe suit and hence the judgment of
1 case is to be held is in favour of the
V .’responc1en.t”herein inasmuch as the oniy issue which came
it for consideration in the said case before the H0n’ble
Siaiprerne Court was with reference to an application filed by
acontesting defendant seeking Vacating the interim Order
5
55
and incidentally delving upon the merits of the case would
amount to waiving their right under Section 8 or not and
was held in the facts of the said case in the negative.
30. However, on examination of facts in
case it is seen that revision petitioners have’-.i_’n .fa.ct’ delved
upon the merits of the case in paragraphs their» 1′.
objections as referred to supra have
their right if any to seek for above
discussion, I am of ;oVp’in.ionjthatlfxhoint No. I
formulated herein ‘answered against
the revision favour of the respondents by
holding that defeiidantsrdgzamely the revision petitioners in
_._the present suit~-..have submitted their statement on the
AV”._subst_a1ice«.of the’ dispute and thus would not be entitled to
inv=okei’the arbitration clause in exercise of their right under
‘ .Section… 8’ of H the new Act.
if * «..3l.VV”’In View of the discussion made hereinabove and
‘conclusion arrived at, it is aiso to be held that the
aw
56
revision petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they
have satisfied the ingredients of Section 8 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996 and they would be entitled to ciairnv i..th.ed’~.re1ief
thereunder.
32. One another aspect which>Vrequi:*esv– ‘noticedddfly
in the instant case is that reVision::’petitioners have “been
consistentiy appearing in
place right from the year e.,Lti1i the date
of filing the app1ication””tinder_sectionip the New Act but
for the reasonsibest have consciously
ornittediflyto-_ about the Arbitration clause.
This condtecti _ oi”_ petitioners expressly exhibit their
intent§ioni’* to VW-aivve the arbitration clause and their
‘ttfsubmit themselves to the jurisdiction of the
dispute being adjudicated. In View of above
Ipoints .12 formulated herein above is answered agaisnt
it Xthedreyision petitioners. Hence, question of considering the
____””.”arguments addressed on question Nos. 3. 4 and 5 would not
@/
57
arise and accordingly the said questions are not addressed
to and answered by this Court.
33. It is needless to observe that in the an
application is filed by the revision petitionezfs”be{oiie:_._:tl1e
Court below to contest the matte; on nie1*its_~v
permission to file written statement ..:’tf1’c._d ‘sained::”w’ili:,e_”be
considered in accordance oaits
34. In view of the above fodllovving passed.
{i){ _Th’efIfevisi.oI1. .p’c1_:__it.1’o1_’: is dismissed as devoid
ofme1jit:3.{‘V_
iii} O1;d’erV_v’V””‘paVs’.sed on LA. No.8 dated
” 22′.ei.2oio by 111 Additional City Civil
Bangalore is hereby confirmed.
A “-._(iii}___* ‘ Order as to costs. ” ‘ ‘
Sd/-
SUDGE
‘ ~ She/bs*