Rudresh S/O Nagaiah vs Smt Lokamma W/O Late Channigaiah on 26 November, 2009

M WAEVWW w.mw -wmo-awwsmw wa awmmmmwamm mmrm Enfiafififlfifi U? HEQW Q? fig;

m was man cwmor mmmrmm AT I J: % _
mmm ms THE zammv cm mvznm$:a% % k

BEFQRE

TI-E Hcarram

s/mmeamx-1,%k V %
men «
Rasmmeaw
KORAHC-ELI,

% X .. Pmrnanak
(BY R.

am    E m g 

  w/<3? mm. cszafixg

21:3-ED "ABCfiI'P58 mam,

   gasmmeax c m,
% A A   scam 
  mmsx.

MRESPOHDEHTS

'Ti&W:rit  flfiaw;

efthe conmamon af India, mm; to ml! far tha
records m Ex. No. 1012009 131:: the file at’ the 1:2

Additfmnal Civi1Judge{.}.D.), Jltfifl, Tumksur and pass
apm@?’aaW’rit0rder£ordi1’e:&hysettizgaufietm

‘$§’Z%Wi§fi$%%W%§ M3 ifififlffi Hfiifim

5.. we. -munnn»vu;wuraur’vmur-an was

an wwrwamx new vwmnavmfimnwm W£$\iV’£”ii wwwmi W’? EWJ-fiwflfififififlflflflfifl ?’fii’@-WW3 Wmflawoelfifi WW Wkfi-‘fi§€§W£%Eo@’$WdW’ WEWW R-ktwofifii @353″ Kfimflfifififlflfia WEMW WW5

nnpum arm dated as-09-mos:

executing court, vidse Am-F.

‘f& Pefin mmixg on fizr

tm day, the Caurt mde the J A.

The aucacutzinn
No.10/2009 on ma ;_af: c*;ivi1 Judge,

(Jr.I)n.) as my V as com

praym fqr 3.9.2009 %«ed in
the E£” §§.

Lam} ‘ fi>r the petitk:-mar aubmm

a suit in o.s.m.e92}2om

pefitionew am twee otlnas for

wan mam ta ta suit and.

‘ ” the decree was sought. ta ha weeuted by
in Encutam Case Ho.m;ma9 on the

% the 1: Add}. cm Judge, mpg.) & am:-c at
% In an mcutian me, the pefifienw ma an
: appammnuuamezawmcz R1.1§e29afCFC praying

the Emcuflrg Court ta any the Exemmm Pafitfiarx. till

L

W”}~§%*?’..i;*a?’§%§fi’=@*”%% fifi fimééflflfi Mfiifi W”}WiW’?’»MW}i 23% £fiWZE3 fiflifl T am imam MQEH Wfiwfiwwfivm .~§€3 WHQ3 Mfiifi wmwmw fifi ififfiflfi HQ

“””””””‘””‘” “‘””””” W”””‘°””””” W” “”””””””””””-W r””W3″” WWW”? WW” WRKWMWNRW WEWW K-«QJUPH WP flflflwfifflfifl Eiififi $03

the disposal of R.A.Na.191/ am, pmcam on me % % f% % I f _
%1 Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.], gag k
appfimfiem was apmed by the A %

Ctnzrtfitw’ flmappfimfima. ‘

2. The quembx:

deem by the men ‘ It
appears the the

C).’é§.Ila.6nF.;é§v}.”‘)’éV€¥3’I«:;’.j;._-V’ em ‘
Emumg ‘(‘.,§>”u1’t’ fizz rejeccm the
apphfi nerm1darO:vder)GfiRule

2§¢f ‘respmdentldecree helder mad

” 8ectJm1′ 151 of cm on

aeekim the trial Court to

V palias i.e., Km-a Pbfice, Kora, he give:
we the deem mm to am we and pmpmy.

cam atbwofi the app&:mb1’.1. Since the
debtor as mwrum with the mponaam

d%hoh:ia°’epeacefulpo¢umwn.ofthaauitua::hadt11e
mwqmfiimpimefbimmlahuwiflxfiw

L

wwmmmé gm mmm Mmw wmmwmg W mmrm Wm mmwmw M3 mam mm WWWWW W ‘WWW WW WWWWW W WWW W

. ii… fimfifi

fifi ffiiwfi 5%, §§.,§_§§ ESE fifiwmfiw mxfi §§z%§§ fimfifi méafi § §%2%%§§ $5.3 fifififis am §fiE.fi%§§ 2%: aggf Q? $%%£.w§mfi,¥,,

-i§W@m’5

-4»
po1k:e,therewasmp:’ofieot£onfor thedaoreeh_o§ ‘ T V»
Emarmtixag Court alhwed the Q
Section 151 cf cm for police 9 ¢ % H
V
dismissed. *

Sd/if
&iUDEE

&§ smmuw mgmxwmfiusw fig»: _a%.$€%a.§£pmg€§ b3 ww:..g¥.waf urwhiiu .r3.E.§v?r…….y. 3!. «.3»…-.l.I. ..-l»-us uli ‘5

Q9 3&3? §§§% _