Hemarathana vs The Authorised Officer on 30 April, 2009

1% WRIT PETITIQN $ FILED UNI;-ER ARTICLES 326
AND 227 OF’ T% C0 GN GI!’ IHDIA,
3E’T’ ASIDE TEE €3R}3ER HATED 3.3.30fi9 Bi

I.A.Ho.25sa,I2aaea m 1.2. 1*I0.I€Jfiv9[20£38 B? mxunmrg
REGGVERY ‘mmzma. awmwm, ms ‘
mm e:3m’3EQUEm°IALLY aapmw ‘FE-IE
m.255&}2eea IN 112 H0.1G69[2088 on” 03?. ‘T’I’IE,, ” *

DEBT Iarxzavzxv TRIBUKAL AT .’ –

“rm wmrr PE’1’ITI<)li' conmzacwnégméa oamaxs

my, ms cam mm rm %

, guit pfim

hetwaexz tbaa pefi'f£.o nm- ::!5fov.e.2, 3 and

4». 'rm in this

petitinxi gr the partition suit:
pmrm ad3u&5m-:i§§g

2. the petitioner to work
c:21’E I5;§. }!:)e?i1.:£¢ Court, which is already

_ fiat rmpcndent-Bank.

L3, amjmg above ahsavatimn, the petition is

v -«w» ma nmntvmnmnfl nawn Kwwum Q? KARN&’¥’&E€fi EIQH COW??? 0? KAKNATAKA HEQH CQURT QF Khfiwfiifififl flififi (

Sd/-~
Judge
VGR