IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT I3ANGAI,OR_E
DATED THIS THE 13'?" DAY OF SEPTE3MBf+1R¢V.2Q';»V('):'_' "
.,I3..8£S__E_M
THE HON'BLE MR3USTICE: '*J.d-..sAB1«%A1§1T, ~. "
THE HONBLE MRSiJUSTIC§2 B.V:NAGARATHN;A
M1sc.w.No.5762/201o"Iré Tw.'A_,71S€.d.3ié-3V2o_/20 10[L-TER)
1.
SR} (3 M SL;-R£:sH’—- . ‘
D/o__$VR1″3H1VAV1:uMAR_” ”
AGED ABOUT 21′-9 _
R/Afr No. 14’}4.1~4,8;% BE}_jiI1\ID TOWN CLUB
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTR{.CT~ ‘ .
ED R.__sAT1sr~;- ….. –« ~’
, S/0′ SR1 RAMAKRISHNA
“AGiEvD”A BOU~T 25 YEARS
— -I”R/AT:’BT1\T}39’O3/4
H KEPPAE3~WAMY MUDALIYAR LYAOUT
“BAN_GAR’APET TOWN AND TALUK
KQLAR DISTRICT–563 1:4
” APPELLANTS
‘ T:'(By.5;f.’v s NAIK :3: MANJULA N KULKARNI, ADVS.)
4″ THE MANAGING 1)1R1+:cT0R
BESCOM, K. R.CERCLE
BANGALORE–56O O01.
RIESPONDENT
rs»
THusnmscAv5762/MJINLED BY THE ADVOCATE
FORAPMHLANFUKS5OFTHELmMTNHONACTPRAfiNQ
‘K)C0ND0NE’nm:DEun’0F:%sDAw31NInmfiQffifi§e
APPEAL.
This MISC.W coming on fer1″Qrdera_”_tAti1is”
SABHAHIT J, made the f0110wirig~:….r
Qnnfiaxfl,
Misc. W. N05762 it i8?’ fileeipi iieqridorlation of
delay of 28 days_ if:1tt’i1ing V”
2. Weghaife counsel appearing for the
parties At.the…”~7averments made in the said
, &_app1i~c–:i1.tio_if1 sVuppidr’tec1____1ppyv the affidavit.
3′. Ha’vi32gi”~.ifegard to the averments made in the
isiiipperted by the affidavit, which are not
contiitpver£;e~d_,i’j.we hold that sufficient cause Is made out for
‘c>.0ndoni11get’he delay of 28 days in filing the application —
K/_Ii3e_.”W.N0.5762/2010 on payment ofcost.
W/R
4. ACc01’di11g1.y. Misc.V\I.N0.5’762/2010 is allowed. The
delay in filing the appiicatiozl is COl”1dOI1(3d on paymen_t {)_l*c_’0:s_t.
of R3300/W (Rupees Five HLEI’1C11’€;’.d oniy) to _
before {he High Court within six \veek§ from b .
S=!=