Sri.K.B.Vijayakumar vs Sri.Krishnegowda.H.L on 17 February, 2010

M.F,A.No.3965/2009 and
Misc. C vi. 981 242009

MlSC.CVI.. IS FILED U/S5 OF ‘E’l~~¥E I,.IMl’i’A’l’lON ACT

PRAYING TO CONDOl\3’l£ ‘l’i'”lEZ IDEII.-AY OF 3:99 DAYS IN I-?’ll-IE\E(_}

TH E APPECAL.

APPEAL AND M1s<:.(:v1,. COMING ON FOR oR1)a:E'%§.':'I':5{i':§j':. A.

DAY. Tl-Hi COURT DELIVEREZD THE F()l,l,(i)VVIN(}:

y

There is a delay of more thar1._on_ey:ea1*..a'nd' f()"1lr.__

months [499 ' days} in":_ "~f1ling2F. lathe

Misc.Cvl.98l2/2009 is filed fee'l'jA~¢o1e}g¢nétl;§;gl:% of the
delay. 1 have heard the for
the appellant support.

of the applicat’1nai’_3.:V shown is
not sufiieientlllyytid delay of 499
days in ffiilinlgl Accordingly.
Misc.Cvl.;§8l.2/4§G{l9;’ie ellisnlllissed. Consequently, the

H appeal ‘ {i’isrt;;iS’Sed.

.Sl’l1/M;§ M ‘l