-17-nu-nu tr' rrvvurw I' lilhfl v \-\-rvvI_.- .y- nnnuururuvo Tll\.3l"V \.vUK9 U!' ARKNHIHKR NFUH LUURF OF KARNATAKA HIGH OF HIGH THIS asp. FILED Ufs. 100 as cpc'-..%V2a:*-gmziis-r~%.T mt-: JUDGEMENT 5. 13361133 am».3,9.o4""m$%33mjm, n.a.No.13z'93 an THE FILE CJF *aImL,,"«3:>:s=r. mes, MANDYA, Dxsnzssma APPEAL " cowxmnns Ti-E Jumfirmms mm IIECJREE rxfrn ' 30.8.93
PASSED IN 05 ’29;f.$1 ‘5.E_’IIzE >92″
mm ADDL. CIVIL amen, 1mm*z.z;.
THIS RSA CO1-IIH£3~.._ON_r’ f’GIE§: <3iiI3_ERS 'TSIIS BAY,
THE; comm' DELIVERED –3=%o;:.mw::_–;nf;':
when 1 . 12 . 2004 ,
the of§i_._-#9 and called
upon ti}; appellant: to c::>m;u}.y
with a,1l&”thoseVV”egf’fi::’§”_.»L.§$}:;jaction» including the
pagrnxeigfiz vat court fee payable by the
~._a3;3pella;i1{:.§«. ‘*~-v’I’h’agh several opportunitriea ware
g9i:”aii.t§:ci; office abj ectiens were not
V car®i’i 9:319:-a*;i;”t;:h .
In the circumstancea, on 3.4.2.2605,
twa weeks time ta comply with the
. . office cbjectiona. thia Court: passed a pm-
ezrptozy eardez: that “if the office abjections
are net cmmplied with, the appeal shall stand
%
–~- ~–. – – —.-V .–o-¥= W» -on-Wunuirilriaiurri I IPHEI !- \ar\ul\I!\l. \I’l’- flsD%KI””‘I”\l\” “I3″
dismissed for non prosecution wit}it}:i1tjV’TV..a:xjQrT’
further: orders”. I-Icswevext, ‘&§.=§é-411az{ts«,,_
not cocmly with this cffiice
the said period at two wé:é»’3:s. ‘ ‘Air-Tsa§”;z::{h.,” i:i:e
appeal astood diamiaiéegl fa:-:3;-“i.1Vr§:’:ja4::VV\g:.~:AaeVx1.
3. T218.I?E’e’1fv”t.’-EI,:…~v~é#}’§3.iVC_.é;»j;j:¥:;33.’Vfifig.’-IA’II and
IA No.III _a condonation
of application and
also» the cards: dated
14.2.200é5ia _ appeal ZEGJZ nc>n-
prc3as«n;§;§:itAicn. ~~’.1_’ §§ose: applicatians were heazad on
they were allawed on payment of
— payable to the K:-utnataka
V .I.egai’ Séfvifies Authority within six weeks tram
‘A date. It appears, the agpellanta
. &~dé;§é’s§.tad the coat of 113.300/’–. Tharmfiozre,
T wpeal came to be reatarad.
4. HO-WaV$1′,I; after: the reatazration of the
appeal, the appellants did not comply with the
y
‘ \n$’IJ’\I’ Iui’~
raffice obj ezestionss, even thcugh —
adjaurrzznents were granted ;§f ‘t:’ha
the learned counael _ appéa.?:’i_fi:g 2
appellants .. Even today,’ T jizas ‘.j.V:’i;ét’:ad
for orders regardin9’…_«_non ?:C:£$£pJ;’i’anc:e c$f “éffice
objactions. Tha for the
appellants’ Eaeerlgiz with
“”‘””””””” “”‘”‘ ‘-‘-“”‘~’a.’-“‘ “”‘”””””” “N” *-Vt-H” v-‘ M-umlmt-\Iw I-nun-I LUUKI ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF !(ARNA’i’AKA HIGH COU
the offica ‘bee arry
justi 1″ i ab}. 9 za;f.iéé1’1’ I A ‘._’.’\’V’.”¥’.i1″.»*V::’:1’1»a 2 time
to comply The
appellants hagra rz;<'3L14':"~V1; a1:-9'11 to get tha
office='j'V'Vé§bj'ec§§ii:;o::a% 2:gmc;{?éii"'fbr over five years.
T2;nre£c;'é_', entitled for fiurther
of this court. In the
ci1;ciit;:a?;'ancas," appeal ia dismissed fax:
" ~ .. AV i:n::§n-?p..tcsV e:f:uti'*§:;n .
Sd/-*
Iudge
Pl"'