IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
E
DATED THIS THE 14″‘ DAY OF
BEFOERE
THE HON-BLE MR. JUS*!’_I_CEV4’EIf{.;TLA.IJVAD.i,(}.}iA§;ii§vSiI’L
BE_GUI§A$ FIRST AP§¥E.o.L N0%.59gV’:0EV.”V’;m
BETWEEN: K
Smt.A.i3aravathi, V
Aged about~v5i’««yé:ars,§:_ _
Dxo1ateAv#xmiaé:1z. % %
No.97,
unm,3aaga:m,ssoa§s.% A & …APPELLAN’r
(BySri%~3a**=**5?i9kRj[= ~’W{) %
Sr.i.N£oha§i”i(ris.!:na.N,
about 39 years,
. £S!g§I{§N:a1g”cndra,
* Na’.35<5,, Floor, 13*' 'A' Cress,
Vylléiicaval,
H Bangalore-560003.
2 2, Sri.G11mraj.V.Patil,
‘ Aged about 48 years,
Sit) V.R.Pa11’1,
No.57, 5″‘ Cross, S.B.Extension,
Mallcswaram,
Bangalore-560003. …RESPONDI3NTS
WV *1!!!
V, ._%;t5$xc*rcisinng’A ptzfievm under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence,
3
defendants were served with notice they remained exparta,
Payment of the court five and valuation
issue and avidcnce was let in fiat} ;’–:f.)I’I§e.’ (.)Vf
marked. On 26.11.07, onVheari:»fie_gg2 J
has some to the co:1c1t:§iCs;.r4’1;.V:’ii1at £56′ file ‘frogzsh
valuation slip along defiéit’ fee. Further
when the matter the Piainfifl and her
Counscfl when the matter was
the plaintiff and her counsel
ififerq __t9 file fresh valuation slip and pay the
daiicif Co’:m’Vfie:.c9 such, the plaint came to be rejected
% 3- Heard.
4- Having regard to the nature of controversy involved
the matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission
itself. 33″”
appellant to comply with the Qtder of pf éiéiicit Céaufi
fee and filing of valuatinn slip.’ N:§ cdstsiiw
Bkp.
dispensing with notice to the respondezm, appaalV.ié§:%ii!.pwcd and
the impugnw order ef rejecting the plaint Rule
11 of CPC by order dated is
restored on the board of the Vifié ‘A
in accordance with iai&’_ “‘by giving t'(:- thc