Sri M N Navallimath S/O Ningayya vs Smt Shantha V Halakatti on 19 January, 2009

. M$ .- - -' é RNARKA H1
uwufii ur awmwsmfima Mmifl Ulsifiiigi  %m'»'=§«a«%\%*v:§Afit\"fifi&K% Wififi CWQJW" 3? ¥(fifiWfl?AKfi Hififii CQURT OF Kfi§NAT&§(A HEGH fifliffl"? €35? WA

IN 3&3 HIGH COURT Q? KARNAT§KA AT aameagsgfijv

SATEB: @313 THE 1§% may or JANUARY 2@9§,@'?¥V.

SEFGRE

THE HON'ELE MR.JUsT:Ca m;Ki?£f:§} °f2 ""

MESC.CVL.62§ GE 2099 EN f A}
HGUSE REM? REVE$EGN PETI?IGM NQ.15é of 2062 {EVE}

BETWEEN:

SR: M N NAVA@LIF"?H

s/0 NINGAYYA ' 1

AGE: ?4 yfiégs-f_ _
ace: RETD. sovw. 3ERVAw?'%)."
R/O LINEBAZARN *."" "
DHARWRD ' T"

'-,:,*§ET1T:0NER

{By Sri. s.M,%KAgmA£;»AbyccA?3.>

RN32

SMTWSHAfi?H&_¥ fi%EAKATTi
AGE:'%A$QR,j@:c:VaQgsEH0Lm

; g/0 BAfiQ%RGALL§ ' "

FEERR KAMRSKATE *3'

EHARWAD " '"

.-'a.'. RESPONDENT

A % §§f $r§;vS$§JEEV V.HANCHATE, ADVOCATE.}

_”*.:hig,’M:sc.cv:., is filed u/S 215 09c
pfiayifi§mt§ extené thfi granted time to vacate
the pfemiaes for a further period 0f one year
as prayed for.

This Mi3c.Cvl., sawing on for Orders thig
day, tha Court made the following:

— u -.-. …….§_.<.V' vr mmamm men count: or KARNATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or xnamnmm r

the statement made :5 the instant appliéééifin

does not inspire the confidence of this_C¢urtLf*~c

4. The pétitimner has pn6duéed_tha’disch$rge

summary sheet wherein it is spécifically refeLred

that he has been dischafgefl from t§ég§¢é§i£él as
early as on 19.07.2007 and”€5e HRRP %asAdisposad
on 02.88.2007 .mc:>1:1tEz5′ time
for vacatiflg fihfiu 3é5§a3fi?v[&%@§i%e$: afie§ce, the
statement _m$ag5:§y.:;§ek pé$;fi@fi%% cannot be
mxBptefi,_v§g§ Q@§\ i§T gfi§%§$ed to seek any
extensign :Ofr fi*fié;> i$2f1fld no good ground to

entertain the instafitsépglication.

__ 4″

Vftu §ence}” the appiicafiion fiiefl tar Lhe

,p%titicnér Staads dismissed.

. $rdé:é§?accOrding1y.

sdlfi
Tudfé

*KS§f28.02.2$G7.

mflh véaflmnlmn m.vuz:6~:a..a:nu_.amv|m|a_u|w um. &hn»&..m..am