......... -...mm ur mmmnm HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA awn COURT or KARNATAKA n-ucm CPU! ,1- 115 111; maxi count or xaxuumum AT nxmn THIS 'mm 6'"! my or ._ " % mamas: " ' ~ " - um I-l0!l'3LE um. Jus1*Ic:_:M)_._v. cum. mvxsxoa rmi1oa.%g¢.6 _& Between: GANGAMMA, smcs: DECEASED BY Sm. K. RATHNA, --_ 3- . AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,' 2 ' w/0 N. GOPALACHARE, " R/AT N0. 3/7m-,,_ 1 SEETHARA1M~NM}AR. 1 KRISHNAGIRI. Maire; RDA _ HOSUR-::635»I'O9;""--._, !Z)I~iARMAPLIRI»..I}iESTRICT. '. A " PETi'I'IONER % " " Hcgdc, Adm] K. ?'?iYA<i?£RA93.' % AGED ABOUT'-as YEAR S/Ct' LATE»KRISHNA'CHARI, 'V ' «3MTc'c0m:z;c'1'oR, Bmfcvy 'z3_a:9o':'._. VLJAYNAGAR, % RESPONDENT
K. Suman and Ms. Smcdcvi, Advs., for 0/ R]
” fiils CRP FILED uxs 115 09* cm AGAINST THE 029312 :31′.
” ” PASSED IN MISC. NO. 17′? OF’ 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
,XII”AI)DL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE (SCCH NO. 8},
‘_A”LbOWING THE PE’}’I”:”ION F§LED U/O IX R 13 OF CFC R/W RULE
33 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT RULES 2001 AND SETTING ASIDE
V. .-.”I’I~§E EXPARTE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DT. 11.3.2003 PASSED
IN HRC NO. 733/2001 AND E”I\Z3.,
THIS PE’I’I’I’ION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
001.11?!’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ulknhill n_lAx:_auunn..-… _… ._ __
ATAVIQIAHIGH C01;
…,…….. \.a\JUfi.I ur mmmrnm men mum’ es ECARNATAKA men COURT er?
– 3 –
an application by setting aside the earlier orderjevriction;
that it was not a bonafide order etc.,.
3. The impugied order ‘
defended by Sri. suman and
appearing for the respondients; _
4. After the matter — n’for.Vsome time. at 1116
suggestion of the have arrived at an
amicable-tria to buy peace for the present
and i:nen::’e~-His’; filed by the respondent
indicaeng V “order impugled in the revision
petition’ not-__ on merits, the respondent is
not” «seek for restoration of the petition
a ;.VsehedtfieV”vpi\3mises eom which he had been evicted as
” d.pu”n”ngvA ‘th_eV..5’pendency of the miscellaneous petition, the
gwho had suifered eviction order had been evicted
A if into operation the eviction order and that the
i respondent wilt seek restitution only after the proceedings
in HRC case is concluded and if that ends in favour of the
respondent, in the sense, the HRC case is to be dismissed.
e/
3 WWflWfiW%EM%z mm». nmrmmm ..~.«..
‘ ” ‘ ” -“1*\-‘flaniw mvrs uuulu Ur Iv-IKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH C0112
-4-
5. A memo is also filed to this eifect the
respondent and his counsel. Memo is
5. sm. Vaishali Hegde, fox’;
petitioner submits that if this it ‘ recon A
civil revision petition S
7. The ‘t–.heT'”respondent is received
on record. S,ubmiseioxi~. the civil revision
petition is “or
8. in the matter further and
‘V:’u’;o.: that it is an old matter may
bestow attention for. expetiitioiisfiisposal of the case and
at ‘~rat3e’-Viiiéithin tyveiveimonths from the date of receipt
of cogiy of oz?<:_iei';" '-
i’ It is open -tiie parties to adduee such evidence or
evideiiee as they deem fit.
Sd/3′
Judge