IN THE H1(."r§-£ COURT OF Kfi;RNATAKA AT BANGALORE \VP.NO.12399 OF 2908
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA YAKA A TBANGALOKQ'
mm» THIS mm 1511! DAY or &
BEFORE
me Haums MR. JUsTi£?EéN;f\.'!5A4731;_v"' j
BETWEEN
1 c N KALLESHAF'PA
310 NAGAPF-'A u ,
AGED ASOUT 54 YEARS, *
RIO CHJKKNAVANGALA TARIKERE, 2 = '-
TALUK, CHiKKAMA__GALLiR DISTR:$T;=..f -- . V_ -
_ 4 _ _ A :' PETETIONER
(By sn; H R snriegnaészg AD¥fQC;€iE._ 3 V
AND:
1 CMABIKA * V '_ A. - _
wro LATe'::a:+ArrraAKumAa
;3£a_Aeom"'-32 YEARS,
.:a;r;::» CHiK£<.ANAVRbK$ALA BUKKAB€JD£ POST,
. "TARiK;ERE TALUK,
A . WCH!KKA§viAGALUR DiSTRiC1'.
2-. -;BA$AP'F'--A 3 5: - . .
= A A-GED Ae3<:;urT:37 YEAR$,
we Sl¥%3G.Ef3{:3§HALLi RAMGIR: POST,
mmzxerzs TALUK
cnampuaea Dl$TR£C'{.
., AA ' f*4$E$HANA DIG LATE SHANTHA KUMAR
v. AC§_'Ei3 ABOUT 5 YEARS,
_ "iv§iNOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
5 NATUR'Ai. GUARDLAN C.M.AMB¥KA,
7 HRST RESPONDENT,
RIO CHKKANAVANGALA 8UKKA£§flBUDi POST,
TARIKERE TALUK, CH£KKAMAGA£..UR
RESPOMDENTS
IN THE I-H63 COURT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WPNO. 12396 OF 2908
W.P.NO. 12390 or’ r2%o%o3 L %(GfM~Ac1
IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. AT BAI’E€iALORE. WPNO. 12390 OF 2008
-3-
coneidering fire materiai avaiiabie on record and”-efter
raising necessary points for consideratieiia it
assigning cogent reasons in pare-8_ of”‘.’_jha’e Ki’
rejected the said appiication fiiee% eeieeeeeeii
aggrieved by the impugnee’*efder
beiow as referred eeeve,tieeeieeer ‘i”i1e”rein feit
necessrt ated ‘£0 P’e9’e.’..’?”i it seeking
appropriate e.
3. i Viiipeunsei appearing for
eeeei eeieeem of the material avaiiabie
on reeerd, it that, the claim petition has been
b3ti:Ati=e’r:eepondents-1 to 3 ae early as on 315′ October
herein has fiied his statement of
K_”ebjeieiieins hen 149′ February 2007 and there is a direction
by this Court on 19*’ March 2003 in
” “~,..fl’w(§iP.No.’i3l2008 to the Court beiow to dispose of the
matter within six months from that date of receipt 0f the
/4:e
IN TIE, BIG?-i COURT OF KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE WP.N0. 12399 $ 39%
IN T’}£E. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE \VP.NO. 12390 GF 2098
-4.
record. Be that as it may. It is significant to note»-
petitioner has not chosen to file necessary
amendment within the reasonable RV’
chosen to fiie eppiication-for ameifidneeni on
2008 by way of fiiing :.A.No;ii:o75e %:;Ae.i1~z%a;’igifiied by A i
petitioner had come upsfo_r before the Court
below on 11″‘ Septemieer-.’:2C}Ge’;}V::VT];;§:– beiow after’
critical evaIua?;ien£.V%:i3f avaitable on
record and and after recording
a of the proposed
amendrrieefend fiied in support of i.A.No-H
ti1at,V_;fA’ amendment will introduce new
take away we admission already made
and in View of the defence ef the
‘ ‘.Vrespoedent ei Pare»-5 and 7 of the statement of objmtione
” amendment is unnecessary and the said
‘iapiéplicetion has been flied just to prortract the proceedings.
V ~ uuI.”Furfiw’, ‘me Court below has rightiy ebserved met, there
L
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}?’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WPNO. £2390 OF 2008