IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE %N.1;;PA-1¥1ILM""'a
AND V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI():1*£=..I{.GA(3\::f1I*2'}§)}4s.;§?AlA1?§g¥"o'L'i3
M:sc.c_»f1. 1166«<{'0f 2009 % "
M.F'.A .N0. 101-34.n omocfz A-{.13/1221
Between:
Smt. Lalitha 2:
W / 0. Ramacha tzdra VS'ett:ga_;_r,"
Aged about 43 )7.v*'~""°"k,T'~"s, b '
Mathrushri, "
Kadamljiodigv .; _
Surathkal, I_'»'£ang'a1c;j¢'.'~ _
« -- " A .....APPel1ant
(By Srfi,'I_'1'hafanath P.0ojAa13?,"'Advocate)
2 5'. I x H ..... .. V
. =F§0by Joseph,
_s/'o, 'Ihomas,'No.913802o,
KNIC Hosgaital,
M'a.nga'IOx=6="Faluk, DK
The.Ur1"ited India Insurance Co., Ltd"
Branch Office, Saldan Building,
'Bri.gac£e Road,
V' Balmatta,
_..1\/Iangalore Taluk, DK.
Aw
£3/'hi
l\)
Rep.by its Branch Manager __
.... .. Respondents
(Sri.M.U. Poonacha, Adv. for R2
Noucetoiaichspensajunaavnodauxi29:r2o1o1fm”55§af*V”
=|=*=l=**$*=i=*
This lVlisc.CVl. is filed under[secti’on_ of
Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay 289 inst
filing the recailing application to recall the order«. date-ri ”
ll3.3.200§3j
This Misc.Cvl. coming day,
N.K. PATIL J, made the;–‘folloWin’g;–.
13~os~2oee 5 ,_ A,
The instaifit. the learned
counsel for of delay of 289
days _ —
2. l’ learned counsel for the
appellant and learn’ed.”col{insel for second respondent.
. «V Tlie saildlwdlelay has been explained in the
along with the application and the same is
accéptédi ‘ A
_ “Hence, for the reasons stated in the affidavit
fl.1a§d-aknggxvnh the wnscthdu the dekgrin fihng the
recalling application is condoned, subject to the
corrected Vida chamber
order dt.12–10-2016
94/”;
z
I’
1%.
condition that appellant shali deposit RS500/~ as costs
to the High Court Legal Services Committee. xvitE1’in _’01:i’e,A4
Week from
1 3–G8–20 O 8
S13.3.2008_}stands restored. Ac(:01*<:'.i11gl§?:,.VMffjgf, V
hfisoCNLI1664/2009isaflowed. :m
.' Iixdgee
a
'fiudge
tsn'''
" " «co rréébted wide <éh'ambér
'v_ graer a:;12a;o-zoxo.
today. failing Which, the