N'? THE H¥GH C-OUR'? GF KARNATAKA AT RANGA¥.OR'F3 DATED THIS THE 16'-5 DAY 01:' APRIL 2009 BEFORE mm H'ON'F3LF3 MR. .:u:~:m:r«: A 5 norm};-:§AV V' '% RFIGULAR SECOND BETWEEN : E REVANNARADHYA » _ ~ _ AGED 1*~.:3'2=:'_r 60 YEARS 12,e,c»<:H1:<;;A;.:vAHALL1 . -.._VILi.AGE;'KENGERl Hem: ' BANGALQRE SOUTH TALUK Bazszaamea -60 .. ' C.F%-'i3'Ai.ANETHRA RADHYA V VS/O LATE C R RSVANNA RADHYA ' -- _ ..§s(}ED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLJ BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALORE - 60 i -
‘Q
3 C R SHIVANANDARADI-{YA
S/O LATE C R REVANNARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O CHIKKANAHALLI
VILL.A{3E, KENGERI HOBLI ‘
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE «~60 , ”
{BY ms ACO ASSOCIATES, P..DVs) . V
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U] “0F”c_Pc Against ‘THE
JUDGMENT & DEGREE D’T.__3;..I 1.53005, LPASSED IN R.A.NO.
213/1998 on THE ms or ‘r:a§:..An_D:..;31s1t;j .eu»;2_ snssxazszs
JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT–IV, BAN(‘:ALQRF:{F?U_E2AL DIS’I’R!CT
enmmorem, :~.L:.os;cm<3 THE' It-.E*PEAL"AND vsxjrrix'-me; nszns THE
JUDGMENT mm mzckma m', 1221 1.93 aasszzn IN es. 375/98
on THE FILE f)_F'–.'_i'H§§"PRL, cml. JU1::c3E'(J1<'.':)N.) BANGALORE
RURAL 015:1'. ?3AF3jC«Ahi}RE. _
This%'-Apggeagi 'bfi af0rV.2:i§tnissirm, tm day, the
com acaivered%£onowm
the n:'=:'1'rp¢e=~V,2vf-g_I__ was listled on the last data (If htwning,
thfgfc was 'am {hr the petitioner and as such
the §';amc'wéifés._ati.Vjét1mcd ta today, as a last chance.
2; traday, though the matter was vaileti twice,
its no rrrptwéacntatinn far the petititmer. ('.0nsidcring the
K nattxrc of the litigatinn and no pmzgmas hm: been made
4
»
I
from the year 2006, it appears that the V’
imztmstnd in pmseacuting the appeal,
Acxxmtflingly, the appeal ataie.tis1’_’£¥is:§mi$;st§d ‘i’df
pT¥}5¥fl(‘)Hti£’Il’I.
sa/~
Iudgé
Akcjhms 1: ,