n.p.no.1os1¢1oa
II was urea cont: or nnannmaxa as |AlaA;éI£ ?T5°”
nmman THIS TH! 13″nax or gunner 26OB§j. *”
strong I A V
TH: I-I0l’BLl ua..Iua’r.’:c§ n.i:..pAT;L
aux! pnrzrzon |o.1us14f2a6B.;=uLc9§§5 V1
‘*-*—-*–*-*-fff%+’ ~-A.;
BETWEEN
sHT.7.»’IJAY;=aLA1csI-nrlz V ‘
nr..-‘o.1-:.1r.smm’ .4 ‘
AGED ABOUT 36 ”
Rmr No.31, H
unzanmx LAYOUT, HJ5uE_1JGALCiR,E”‘-$.f6& ‘gp1:’:’ITIo2-Isa
(av Ldkfisa MA’. – Arms.)
Mm : . _ . _ ..
sJaT.:w~zJrJ-inn V V
an-‘0. LATE . ‘
A539 ABGQTVVG YEAR3;-.Hv …..
pi,-‘A*’*–.1;1’;m1w;:ép.Nr.AmA:;An sum
YESHE’P.NTHP£JVRF.,*.Bfifl_GAL0RE 22 .. nnspommrr
(BY GDWDA -~ AIIV.)
_*._ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED uunsn ARTICLES
“226 Ann 22? or THE conswrruwron or INDIA PRHYING
‘3″!-TE IMEUGNED ORDER FOUND RT ANNEX C
=; j9AflaEn=5v THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN
‘-}o.s;mag4691/2902 nAmnn.15.7.2oo9.
‘afwfais PETITION cawxns on FOR PRELIMINARY
THIS nmr, THE coun-r name THE 1=’oL.Loar.:Nc::
W.P .lO . 10614,/O8
wuun
. -‘fl-.:\rIn:’Ir’lIr\l\l-\ ruuvr! LUIURI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
W. P 41:: . 19514/ca
OEIR
:5:§..I~’f.P.Kallesh G-tkwda, :”1iE3’r32.TZI’;’3fI’.’1
acszegsrs ncstice fan: the respe2i;§.af&’§.”
3 . In the instant ” ‘.::;§yz§vEi’t;f?$.oner
assailing the c:a’;r;i§’§i¢t1§;ég’$,L” the” “m:<:1a:::
it-@1z.g"r1ad clatad V"»':Vg:§V.e.§sed in
Q.S.Hfi.éE81{3b5§. 3Rfl,théj §i%§ &n§ the learned
City Civil gufigé étififiéggiafig; prasented the
ins! té3.£Ziti_ writ A' ;'i:i cz:r:rz;::* praygd far grant af time ta crass
‘”3§cazuizae W1, but his 1:5-quem: has been
declimfi. Tha said. request had been made due
tn: the pemanal incsnvemience of the ccmxzael
I-i.P.!O.1061¢fOB
.En.WM…I mm§$.m”n..wmsm.xa..mu um.
E
3
3
2
§
5
E
5
E
—n wuwruuunn ‘Ur
H.P.xo.1a61£/68
ta erase examine F1. Tbs matter was§§oéiQ$ jx
finally on 12.s.2aae. asaai1:sg A€gne
aarrectnaas af the ands: T¢a:e$}ul5L?;2fifi8;a,
insefay aa it zelatea tb;;ejéctimg:tfi§ §i@$
anught far by tha patiti$#éfi tQ c£¢%$ examine
Pfli, the patitianar féltingaéafiflfiatad tn file
this writ petiticn. ,m x
3. I $a?é h£$:& %ha ie$;fied cfiunael fox
the patitépfiéfiga§fi_tfiéa;earnad eaunaal far the
reapendent,’.
R”« §. ififfag caiéful perusal of the axden
dafisfi_iS§?E2QfiS what emerges is that 1.A.xx
:V filéfi by tfié fietitionar waa allawad pexfidtting
‘ fiim gm ¢§§aa axamine P1; hat due ta yeraonal
4:;fi¢dm%§nienca afT the ccunxel he prayed far
fl tim%. fhe saws has been rejected. The matter
‘t-as pasted on 1.15 gum. Again, the counsel
grayed far time. His prayer has been rejected
an. the :grouné. that has failed ta crosa
R.?.lo.10§1d!O3
DURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT Qlhlfiflflflfllnnn nun: so …\……. -. -_
fl.P.$G.13§14ffi3
Es.’::~.5’3W- to the raspmnziant and
aaid amcztamt ah:-nrg with the mezw *aeii:1’i:’;T§i .jr.*:.x:1Vé
wag: firazrs tczday.
5. In the light ¢%D*tn§’¢£a¢t§7jan&
circuraatarzeea of ting. ‘ggagsq. E:.’l’);«’.3*.3″9′,} ; the
getitzimgn is allvgsweci dated
m.*z.mi3e gsau;-:gg’s’§;’g;3,;l’~ mp/5;.:;zr§} £i_’a.a§,§%ié::Vé, on the
file sf ‘th%_–§i%§:’¢§§;i .$§§§§» as Bangalaze,
man x§é_iat’fea ta rejecting
the praygézi discharging cxsoaa
a§«:aarai1’§aa§15:::§,mefi{“4″a.t«fi is hamrlzy set aside.
to the trial Cmzrt t-:2
thrcaugh his ccmnat-:1 to
‘e:::a:és:_V HIE and pxacead furthar ta take
deaisienfi in acmrdance with law
of the same as axgediticualy as
=3_.:s.,:r:3si.}:e3.a.
Sdfu.
Judge
£3′
Alli W11-H5….i”0..fi um «VEMMWW !3….N’l”*t«Hw¥ m3%WE%fN§%W%