§V§fi§EK§%CQ§R?QFKfiR§A?AKAAT%£§§éfi§$§=
§ATE31%fi$3%H§§m:§AY<xa3§P?§§:§§;2$§g= '
B§§Q§gf* % _v
mg §~£{}§\E'BLE'; MR. ..;2I;~;?*::'£:§+: KQ-zevzgé"; %
;:gm.;13x;.~Io¢ 5-v%t»&é'i;.;_,%.»:_g*_;gg'%g»;_W5:%
Between: " ' W V'
$ri Aarcat Sam gaih E}§éva:::ss.;,:a_g'a.%:§.._
Sfo iate A&C.if}@}Téa Nayagaifi 4'
Aged V
ResKfing;fl;§¢xagEachgxnyjaegfi
E3afl§akfi%s$§Q<32§:~"x = "~%*
. A }3f3Ei?;1i{T3E'T.%..{iE"
{B55 Sfi K.».s1:ma:+:, }5¥.€£::.}""--- 4' V
V E: VPa::jwan§
Q3. A 3% 'E€;._§\§'.~ ,'?é11':jW331§
Es!§V:a;§a§1i§,*TVSfe3 Eats '§'~é'arajsa_na Bag
?é§:*%:;. Eiamaia R Pazajwazii,
* Wjo P. Panjwani
.' Mrs. Rcaznriia K. Panjwané;
W] :3 K#Nw ?3.IL'!jWa.l'Ei
Mrs. E§$£":a K. Parijwani
Wfe iate Kartar N. Pamjwam
AH am rasiding at €l'I%.%f£.0;.*::. Ag'::i:'£me1fzE:.s
U1
1.
1\E0.145, Old No.51, Richmond Road,
Bangaiere 560 025.
6. M/s S.N.V. Preperties Pvt. I,imit;§:€i; ‘7 v ‘
No.21}, Copperach, 83 ‘T T’
Infarztxy Road, .4
Bangaiorc 560 001. ” ._
(deleted Vida Court order”d..a3;»ed 1′?.’1.Q}2{‘)G5’}§
, 1, .__ ‘~ . ‘ ” %._Resp{>x;:A1cier1ts
(By M/s Kama] &..R{1 a.n1.iv,V gm-Ts.$E- ¢:5 1 to 5
R 5 .d¢ieted;) ‘ % A
This . Rule 1 of CPC praying
for review ~..of~. the ord€=;~r’fjuég111ent and decree éateci
6.10.2004T’paé;:$ed”:§11-R;-E”;A. I’¥C);{5’/?/ 2001 on the file of the
H011’b1i:_ High ‘ Of Bangalore;
This Orders, this day, the
Court ma.<ie_¥_:he fd'13.9wiI}g.: A " "
639 E R
Gf the review petitioner that the
4'pa$sage 1';3"' X 20' has written in the joint meme.
.1 §:::i.,sta;'e:(:f tifie petitioner was in fact Willing to cencede
V "K-4"§£;13z.'.-réégééfiable Iength anti not the fuli length for ingress
V — It is; not the aliegation in the petition that the
of jeint memo is not by free consent and vitiaied
with any voidable circumstazlces. There is no
error on the face of the recarci. A mutual .
the parti<-as is voidable. But c}i*.
the parties is not a voidabie ._
not fmd any good ground to ” L’
Accordingly the review petitio11_. a:1§i.”L_:L¢U,i_05 eire’disi;:1issed.
Vb]-