Loading...

Mrs Mary Joseph vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … on 29 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mrs Mary Joseph vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief … on 29 August, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAREATAKA, BARGALGRE

QATED wnxs rag 29th may 9? Ausvsm, 2egs a v,

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ma. Jcsmxfiz Q K Earzxe * 2 "

WRIT pswzwxon N0.'i9394/$69? gew§¢§¢yMW~

BETWEEN

1 us many JOSEPH. } _
wvo LATE.K.K.JOSEPH' ._
AGED ABOUT 62 ¥aags,Vv

2 M  '  
sxo LAIE;K.K.33E$PH_"g_ _
AGED ABn§w%37.gEARs,g "*

3 ma JGSEPH K fiiafin 3
_' S/Q§LATE.K.K.3DSEPH
"~_AGfiB"AfiOU$z34 YEHRS,

4afmRfGs¢aéE K$v:n
's/0_LArE;g.x;JosEPH
AGED ABOUT 27 ysaas,

°»3LL ARE i/A§gBOOVfiRAHALLY ESTATE,
"*s19aA3UR,v:RAJPEr waanx,
c=xonga3 sxswaxcm-571 253 . parrwxoumns

 ";jBy sf; : nAmaaAaA aanzax)



1 ST.M.'E or KARHMAKA
BY ITS CHIEF szcaawaay
vmazaxsm SOIEDHA,
BANGALORE-01.   _

2 was nzyrmz cmassronmn  
KODAGU nxsmxcm, *
MADIKERI,

3 was DEPUTY coNsgavA2oR*9t.EonE$ws '
MAEIKERE BIVISEQN, A '*f '=_ '"'"
MADIKERI ,   g  V . "  RESFORBEBISES

THIS wagrr, 9m_s':*r:c>1:rg ;s«.[j3_z:t.E1:::. '(mama ARTICLES
225 s; 227 033* egg' coNs§11'ii*Uw:on'---cm*...VIunIA eamrme mo
Quasi; mHz:4--V'o121:-;;1;;;;;'. *n.:1?.._ 1..,13--.;'9.'2ee7 PASSED BY ms
nxsmzcw 13:29.5:-K, Ken,aLm'j3vL.2a*:..V«y::ss3I:<.a'.RI oz»: I.A.NO.III
AND IV__;§N*E."A'.<.32/89"VIDE'..___m1:EEX.A. mm ALLOW ms
ABOVE Vvapénzgmzoizs. _  

1*h.§..s %¥%tr3.;tV  coming on for preliznizxary
11ea.r;LngL_this"»<;3V_ayV, the Cmxrt made the following:

ORDER

‘1’h¢.:i.’g5g3~:;ei:}i.1;ione.::s being aggrieved by the order

dated 13.9.2907 passed an I.A.NOs.III .2

ii} R.,A..2sI0.32/1989 on the file of the learned

D 3;strict Judga, Kodagu at Madikeri, Vida Anx. A

seeking for a3.1ow.mg the above app3.;;cat.-;;aazi;t«._”‘s;;z

the interest of justice and equity preEentée”t§e«’

instant writ petition. ._mb

2. 1 have heard 5:1. zéatéazgéja ‘$;a.3;1ta.3.,’V

learned counsel appeaxifig fa; tfieupetitiefiefs for

quite so time.

3. During thew eett§e:.§%efg#§uments Sri.
Nataraja. E5a1:1l’.*A–z;3;;* ‘fiijeg it submitted
that he wbtifilfiittdtétitfieRinetant petiticn and
would fiie fie efiylieggioe ééeting modification of
the that the applications

filed by t§e.petitieners ceuld be disposed of on

zzaeriigsiv 153 t1ie”‘—gliggzt of the Jucigment of the Apex

gzoutt ‘Via.i1;i.4vA.’tha.t an the gxrounds urged in the

fietitiéntggyibe left open.

éJt;ihe suhission made by the learned

‘.feofifiael as stated above is placed on record.

5. The writ petition filed by the
petitioners is dismissed. as withdrawn reserving

liberty to the petitioners to file nenegnary

agplination for modification of the ,ifl§fign¢§i

order, within two weeks fram the date bf x¢§éip£f”*

of the order. All the contentidnsfitaisé§nin*thé§

writ petition are left qpen.

Sd/~
Judge

i L , Li A sakrseesea

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information