Ilii THE x-11$}: cam? 01? KARIIATAKA M’ BANGALORE
DATED THIS mg 15¢ mar OF’ DECEMBER, 2098
BEFORE
THE HQIWBLE MR.J£,1STICE SUBHASH B.A:>g1f-
C.R.P.NO.319,{?..0O£§ A ‘ ‘
EETWEEN: A
Palangctu Ismail
S/0. Paiangotyu Mi
Aged 52 yeaxs
R] at.Emmemadu Viflage
Madi],-a:.1:iTa1uk , _ ._ 1 Tj AA «
Kodagu District. V _._ *._ f,..;_PETIT§ONER
(By Sri. T. A. Kazi§§:x;baigLi1Advs.)
AND: ” ”
Nuchumaméyamia. ” ‘V
S/0. _ V
Aged about 52, ye’:-arsV
Baliamavuti Viflageé
Mariéii-‘szri Taluk M _ .
Kodagu District. ” ‘ …RE§SPONBENT
?1*1;_u:sk C, l?V;P.–.4VA£s«._fi.1¢d U/3.115 of 090 agairzst the: arder
date€1L__’QV3.T{}?.2{?*(}8~giaissgzd on iA.No.1 in RA No.___–___’/06 on the fiie
e:;~f the ~C§Ef_i1 Jusigc {$14. Elm.) Maéikcri, Kmagu, dismissing tbs
}.___;,.:, No-1 filed 1;,’ 55.’;-:«’o£ the Lirnifation Act, for condonafion of
delay in {fling if11::’–:”{pp¢::al and cbsing this: casa.
: ‘i’hi.s. peviifion cczming cm far orders this day, the Court
‘ ._ ‘ihc: fcsjlmving: –
QQEE.
u WI’,<:a:rI1cd counsel far the pefitianer has filed a memo fer
fienvcrsion of this revésian inm appeal.
Lemmas} counsel fer the pctitiener has admitted that,
revision is not mazlntainable and he wants 1.3:) file an appeal. V–
Accortiingly, this mvisiean is dismissed as 130? mai}2t.afin.éiL+§§~: "
with Eiberty to tha isefifioner I0 file an appeal.
my/~ %%%% % L