High Court Karnataka High Court

A R Nitin S/O A Rajan vs Sri M N Subramanya Naidu on 5 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
A R Nitin S/O A Rajan vs Sri M N Subramanya Naidu on 5 June, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
mu...» mm-mun mwwma Mm. mwmmmwmwmmm %'lU¢.Z9§'"E1 wwmam WW §"'%».I5WsN.fi"%i5"%§é'*"*%a §"'H%,,$§"fi wfijwfifi    

IH!I%'KI'€§aR'€ZOURTOFK.lRN31'fiKlAT£A%££)R£' ._

mm mars 2'5: 5" any or my 2909
mm A

3. .E'.A..No.. 719/2mm  2 9 '

33%

A a mwm 5/0 A   ' 
1" rmca, as nmza. I

more mus 5 as   
1~:o.&7I23,; _ %   " 
9 mm     

  t    Apmum

_ % 

 a_8:x:i. xx  Hams
 _s.m4V1~mmAmsmm
" --  55 mans

 =wIG'sunmm~zm mm:
" A3921) mm 49 YEARS

mm ARE mmnm Hr
110.614/3

, 4*’ cause

1″ smc-:-2

xx muocx

%0 aso nzsponmns

REA HLEU/S 96 O§’CPCAflAIHS’I”B-E

auwmrrmm HERE DA’£’EI):2′?.2..20w PASSED I13

‘0 s.1~ro.16326/2009 cm ‘IEIE In: a’ trim xxvz

J\DDL.CI’1’Y (‘EVIL AND SESSI®IS JUDGE, M1-\YfiI.hLI.,

KEr CUR’-“Z9; P3.’B’.’1’LY DRCREBINEE TIE SUIT

FOR ErJEC’1′!%T $1) HESNE ‘PRO!’ITS {DAHABE8} .

mrzs 33953:. comm m ran Anmsszcm f

DAY, 1’!!! COURT DELIVERED ‘PI-E mmowms:

WE

The appellant/daféndéiiat

o.s.xo.16a2a/2000 am than”..__1Ei1éasa””‘ ‘t:1}¢

mm. City civil : session}-” .tz;W.11,
Bangalaro (ecu-2o: 15% 3éni}i%AJ%’ under

Section 96 of _seg:1ng aside

the 2′: . 2 awe .

service or notice on

r§§§ande£zt»a[pia.iht;.f£a, they have not untarud

f ‘

A counsel ten:

aflaeilfifit/dcfenénnt submit: that

i: I*a!f[3¢nadO11tB filed as emit for ojoctmont and

;d.%ea an 6.11.2300. The appollarxtldefundant

enténod appoaranca and tilad.

terittnrn

utatamuntr. Thu rate of rent was Ra.9,200/–

pan. The datandam: £1106. written etatnmant an

L/M

“*”””””‘” Wwwnww Wm Im”wmnwr«oeI:r*”‘eau”».Ar”<& llwzuaflilim WWWWK Wk l'&J'fi£?h§'%si""*MJ£1""i*.§"%s4£"?m ¥"¥¥l'h$°W"'§ 5a¢'5-$753K? U!" i%.MsKWflH\l£.fi

ii

28.1.2002 and on the same day, the defendant

handed over the pouaoaaion of thy-:V.VV_j'-fifizit

schedule pxmiaoa to the p1ainti:::i'Lj""'a:i.éij:—-:._£1~:.;;*

same in aacknmtledgod by 31;; "

furthnrj submits after: m:r._':i'.t 5 tegi

was 1115:! by 'tag t1 m:– f

plaintiff/landloxgi xafn_:;é:e;1:__t.g £éc$i§oVAvvvfmonth1y
rants. The:a£or§;–….V:"_tI;-Vgg tiled a
Petition ungiaz; Siaefihiiénw ltige Kaxmtaka
mm: II;§§§*::j'%V,i$§$:;'i%faai2oo1 on the
file Banqalora City
and 1; as-tmdaxxt had deposited
rent: at far at periad
c:l.'.'__ 'all amounting to

the name has been paid to

than ._ It is furthor

V%.:–T§i:hmaitt6d. rum: em-men at 115.1, oo,ooo/-

mg: aé na.3e,192;- paid in the landlord

deposit, in all amounting to

has to he refumied by the

and thexetoxa the defendant mm.-in a

cauntax claim. It in also suiamitted that the

II
b
II

plaintitt Nani was sxminod as Pi?–1 wan
bofoxe the dafandant entered appuxanca._.._§fta::

the datsndant entered wpaaxance — ._'£::§.":,_4mc1

written statement, P!-1 did not tuzzxfiex; 4_
to: cmaauxamination.

Caunaal tax: the de£and.an;i:«.V

date am in the 4,: tag the’ %

trial court doercfegd t;m §.ui’tL__ifi’ ‘fmronii: or the
plaintiff: fox fkjgegehy rejected
the cauntgxti :31 ‘$3 “§s’a£en:1a.n,t . rm
inpuqnasfi” §i§1:§§fi3;_ the counter
It is paztimnt
to appellanstldufendant has

gr; apgfifiafiion finéfl: 02¢»: 41 Rule 2’! at

suction 152. «of CK: Making

produce documents and addaacza

klong with the applicatian, the

‘A :.:g4po1″1:anb/defendant has prodntzsd the cextified
or me No.18B/2001; tum meaipta both

‘ 22.4.1997 fast at sum of 113.50, 000/-* each:

copy of chaquaa haarim K953361671 and 061672

datad 22.4.1997 each for 3.a.5o,csooI- and ma

L

nu
H

5. The Registry is diazactad. ta trunmif;

IA-II/2008 with list of domzmentu tut} the

court torthwi th. ‘