Sri. C Ramadas vs Smt. Gowramma on 28 October, 2010

E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY or-' OCTOBER:..,2TiV1Ti'~V,..V'H H

BEFORE

THE 1-ION'BLE MR.JusTICE"jAwP§D  

MISC. cvL.1g1_S§7g1*Di'ON  
R.P.F.C. r~.__sg_-._.__7§[:«'r.9___;'g  =

BETWEEN:

SRI c.RAMADAS,  _  .
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA  

@GNANA'M«U'RTHAPRA,..': .  ..
AGED AE3.0U;T }f2..Y'EAR,S,  1;; ,
R/A N'O-Z9;.(29/7)';»i,'i';H'«[,--  
MQHIDDIN 'SAD !_.A!\IE~, ~  
NARATAr~1ASHE PET, ,'
B7ANGAE_O'F<iE=:?"5f60._O'@2' A

. . A  PETITIONER
(BY 'SR! P.N';NA.N3»-AEEDDY, ADv.,)


.  S_MT,.G,O~WRAMMA,
_ * _ " ' W,f-QۤRI_ QRAMADAS,
" ._  ..__«AGED._AB;O'UT 59 YEARS,
 R/A..NO---29. (29/6),
 MDAHIDDIN SAB LANE,
 NARAYANASHETFY PET,
~  BANGALORE - 560 002
  RESPONDENT

THIS MESC.CVL FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE

E “LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 731

* DAYS.

%

Judge

2

This Misc. Cvl coming on for orders this day,th’e_p_C-ourt
made the foiIowing:– e,

QRDER

Heard on Misc.Cvl. 10168/1’0HMseekirig”‘co:nt1on:aVti.orave.of”IV.

73 days in filing the petition.

2. Though the circumstances:’expiainedV_ i’iaet’%aeV'”ahiiVdavit do

not strictly constitutes sufficient ‘caiiisiéi-._With«ta’-View to give
one more opportunity as the
application is hotiopposecl despite service
of notice, ~~-filing the petition is
Condofiédjq é .

3. ii:is¢.cvi. 1′ is allowed.

m.

Sd/-