IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20m DAY OF NOVEMBER :BEFORE: ' ' THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. :f.f: 3 M1sc.cIvIL_NO.20Ig44/Q9' REVIEW PETITION N03529:./2009~-- _' ._ REVIEW PETITION NO$Z9.1 /2009..IN" I WRIT PETITION I>IO.--III'55'E./.2008 BETWEEN: 1. .
AGED EEVENTTO-NE;_YEARs, *
SENIOR ..C’I’T’IZE§N’ F3EN EFITS “I’\IO*I’ CLAIMED.
R/AT TP1Al.E..K”OPI?”A VIL1 AGE,
CHELUR I_–IOI3L.I.’*
GUEBI TALUK’; TUNIKUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER
‘(Bf Sn. *AIIII’AI§EYA. ADVOCATE)
A TAIISILDAR. GUBI,
CIUBBI TALUK.
T TUMKUR.
= s. RAMANNA.
S/O. SANNAHANU I.
—‘–“—‘-‘h-‘—‘-4
6.
RAN G-ASVVAMAIAH .
S / O. HALAGAIAH.
SAN NARANGAIAH .
S/ O. HALAGAIAIMI.
T. SHIVANNA.
s/0. HALAGAIAH.
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE’,
R/AT TALEKOPPA VILLAGE.
CHOLUR HOBLI. ”
GUBBI TALUK.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
GANGAMMA W /0. “C1?1IKP-iAi’u;_
R/AT AIVIMANAGATTA.-1 ‘ ‘
GUBBI TA.Ll.}K. . V
TUMKUR… ‘ I
Mm» _ ‘c,iv££’ 1;, 44’/0
;\;A}”‘” .. “A
… RESPONIJENTS
in Review PeLiU'()r1
N0.291/’-2009 is :6’f”__’fJi.1r1i§’.a1,i011 Act, to condone the
deiay of iV’I1._f'”iEi.I1L§_?;’«E.f”?i€ Review Pei:it.io1’1. in the imcsresi
0i’ju.si{:icej’and eqL’:it.yV.V_ _____
Petition is fikecl 11/0. 47 Rule: 1 of CPC,
p1″§13i_:’_i§g of the Order dated 1.9~01–2009 passeci in
” aKa.m:;iE_aka. I:3€mgaI0re.
/
‘~… =w.;_>.11655./2008. on the file of the Hague P:{‘i_gh Court: of
AW
This Misc. Civil and Review I-‘eii1.i01’1 c7()n’iiI’ig on for
Orders this day, the court. made the following:
0 R D E R
The Misceiiarieous cwn N0.2OI44/2009
condoxiatiozl of delay of 144 days in i’i1i{igf’_”‘t..hedfievieiruj
Petition. The said delay has been eV.?{p1ai’I’1ed”ii1 paiigigrapiis 47
to E2. It is stated thaé. the counsel hii1C1:”E10t aijpcafed bi%i;d’;:éV’
the court since he was held ‘E.”i”{.)F.i*I1 s0nie._Oiib_er €:I3u1’t. and
when he came to the Cétirl. ‘{,hé”Cas’e {ms called o”ut: and it
was dismissed without heari–:'{g:’V t._P_1.é= f_a.if”gp_:n1ei1is. The
petitioner is sin’-singed siifi7ef:’i1ig fi”0’1T1 1l1~hea11.h and
she COli1_d not :r1e’e{:’the»iad1tQE:’ai,e’ and give proper instruciioiis
in i1’me. The s:1idV’de1’ay” is_”_.’ne1’1ihe1* inteiitional nor deiibemte
bL1i4..Id:e3V70’r3d {.’C)vI11l”(‘)v’a of the peiitioner. If the delay is
.CC5i1.dOf1€d’.,11()'”ha1’dS1’1ip 0:1′ iIT(:’.}.)€£I’E1b1€ loss wauld be caused
E0. “the i’e’s.p0~;idVent.s. ‘i’hei’efore, she has prayed for
Cond.011a-{:ii)I’1 delay of £44 days in filirig the 1’€Vi€’.’W pet’1’t.i0n
andyo Iieal’ the review pe1.i.i’.iE:1 on ineréis and disposed of.
__.__m_______m____,,____..r
Z