” ‘-“-M-‘*’*’f,! «yr’ nnmwu-HARM Wswrfl LJUUKE U?” KAfi’€NA”€’Afifil. HEGH CQURT G? KARNAVAKA H39″ COURT 0? KflRN&TAKA H365′! CQUR
‘rm R.S.A. is med undanr semen 1o<:: %~a; the
C.P.C. against the judit and domes
coufix-ming the j1J@§:;t_ 7.
passed in 0.s.Na.229;sag§a um 31;} sr%t15e%%Aad1. cm
Cnurt delivfmjgti um fiomwtdgi L
by the dusenaan: befare the
the suit med by tlza
& fiat panuaaakan wag damned
pram-ed tar the defierxdant also being
= ncurnent finding. of the smart: habw
bask fur the second appeal.
2. The lanrnad Counsel fir that appellant
submitted that the courts below did mt consider the
we fllf”h19’I
daasEa::1dnnt’scanet!ntheTat}wadoptedaona:l’t1n
nit-vi
p]aix1m’a11<itl'1:erefat¢t1mjuiteft1ncourto
balmvcanmrtbauustairwdinlaw.
; 21/
r"
en 1ur’nvtl’l
passed #1 R.A.!Io.4[98 on the file
cam, Efistrict & Sausialznyludge, _
Rum} mmim, Bumnlore, V
_Wm .,.. ..’………..m.’..a .,……..,…_..,,.~ Mmmmm nwwn Wum Ur mmmmm 1-man-1 mum cw mmmmm mm” czmm W mmmmm mm com
3. On. the ether hand. the aubn&as1g5z1j ‘:”*:>21′ the
Iaaarnad Caumel fir tha reupondmxtn
mum have mken note gt’ §
o.s.xa.g-was and have thy’ ‘
failed to» embnm as t2n es’ at gttjgs
puma and «Law amasma mm
intacrferirg with of the mum
below rm substantial
“”” aubmisoinm, I twee
judgment: of this court:
.p,»m court, in mmmm has
V H suits filad lay tin praenx
% pmnuma in o.s.Ho 90,182 which um
‘A was also canfrxned bath in R.A.Ho.35]86
X *R.s.a.1Io.a991s7. ‘fine contention put tbrward by
H appellant’: Ceumal mw before this court that}:
isflmadopmdwnoftlwphintifiwmahompavedm
the msrliar suit in 0.8.1Ia.90[85-2 and flu (ppm!
prefmredbyflwappeflantwmabodwhued. lathe
]ightc£t1’wwxr£fiunpa’nmedingureEm’redtnEy’thelawor
ix
4