IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI;C>RE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE ”
BEFORE % _ . . %
THE HON’BLE fir. Jus*:*IcE ‘K”f’B%–:Av1{3fHA?.};€§Tg§§§;A’
MISC. cxvu, No.!§&9’l2″l_1éfi”)O9» _~_ 1″ = V’ V’
IN REGULAR FiRsT’A? f>EAL
BETWEEN:
Mrnvemi, 4' 5/o.A.sxinivasa; " ' '1 » Aged 28 yeais, 5 '
950.546-Y,%…J,_”‘ _ ‘-1;,
New Mufl1yal;amjma T’x:mpl’e,.,_
15th Maia, E£I’B1oCiai;~-.»” «
Rajajizxagar, = _ ”
Banga1ore~1–Q. * V ~ _ …APPELLAN’I’
(By s:§;;N.s.pumsb§£haq§a Rao, Adv.)
Vaséitxiha, : ~ V T’ ”
i)/<;..Ka21th.§2ixii_:1;é,
'.R;a.No…1s.§é; 41: Mam,
' " é " — _. 1%:-;Asavesm3~ra Nagar,
'V V' .. Ba11ga19re–79. ..,RES?C)N9EN'I'
V' This Misc. Civil is filed 11/$.15}. of cm praying to permit the
.:Vap;:ic11ant to file and prosecute the appeal against the Judgment
" and Decree dated 29.9.2006 passed in O.S.No.4269/1987 on the
V 'file of the X} Add}. City Civil Court, Bangalore, for the reasons
stated therein.
his paternal grandfather, he made an appfieafieii
rccozti claiming that he has become Mlegatee: right
respect of the same, but the ‘i’ria1 sueh ”
application was not pemxissfn-1e in ahsuit end
dismissed the same. Tl:1ereforve, I:<:::. has cliaflefiged tige order of the
'I"11a1' Courtin this appes;3,,__
3. In viewpf the» ai3(:ve,*– _1:h_e” “a_p;$1ie¢int is permitted to
chaiienge the
4. plaintiff/appellant in the
‘ ….. .. ‘V
causetitle ‘notw “the caunsel for the appeiiant is
dizected to _i:he *.ééfie. Accordingly, Misc. Civil No.
Sd/-r
._ Judge
‘::;.r;’w*”