A G Shviakumar S/O Late A.G. … vs The Manager on 6 February, 2009

ORDER

The petitioner is tsrafling in qlwstion the jzldgzngntfind

deems dated 19.4.2008 passed in so No.23,I2m4;~–.’3j_ :§.z§ ‘

said jurigment and decmer, the suit of the ‘

dismissed.

2. Heard the learned

and perused the petition ‘ .. ..

3. The petitiom-,r~. iiettéin is ‘iv-aEt7agA”~%;»aaint5tv in so

No.28]20G4. The.» .:»z:’:.!’.t:fwz-:5; against the
defendant/Rgajféi: %I”_A~A defendant] Rank for a
perind of the PD ‘{‘(tCfi’ij{}t NQRIDIQZ

bearing Aocxarding tn the pkainfifi’, the

V as satattaci on the

was to matxlm an 23.4.2003. Ftlrtherr

c<3ni:e;13ti0n~ the plaintiff is that on maturity, the

$

'a

by the trial Court does not indicate any pewerssity :iésr: ¥'s 3'tA'

errrxntmus so as to call for intierfcrence. .

Thercfnm, the petition hcing dcvoid..__r§f–»..Vjt§%é§*iir;_ 34-'

disposed of. No order as to costs.