Sri.K.M.Gopikumar vs Sri.M.J.Shivakumar on 28 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH C{)UR'I' OF' KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 281*' DAY1_mI':J§j.I:.€'2d?0Ag--.. 2   é  3

 V
THE §wN'BLE MR.JUSTI(3fE ABDUL .p§AZEEi:§:
  
REGULAR xzmsw APPEAL. N::§..6Q3;*  (3.513)

BETWEEN :   V'

Sri. §<.M;'  'V

S/9. K. ;»1un5han:;ungiiah'<..A%_  -- '

Major  ._ V _ 

No.14Q, 19-'rh'A?B1cck"'.' ,. " 

H.S.R* La.yoz.L1*£.VSecto1'._-« 'F, V '

Banga;i.0';'r:_=---- 560'-I334' '  APPELLANT

    

Am}.  V A

 'Sari.  
~ -«  £310. latcv.M'.B. Jayadevappa
' 2, 15*, Maxufifi Extension

'flaiagajcra --- 566 021

_V  by his son ané pawaar 0f
%   giiomey Haida: Sri. S. Chetam)  I? RESPONDENT

f{By Sri. MA. Humayun, Adv.)

This M:isc.Cv1. is filed unéer Order XL: Rule 3..
with Sectien 151 of CPC praying for permission V ”

the “memorandum of appeal and etc.

This Misc.Cv1coming on my heating on

ezppiication this day, the Court made the féfiowingi’ — 4 _V

2:32.313-.4_
For the masons set out in £n§.”%apphcé;ai¢§:T CV1.

N<3.i{3S7O/2009, the appéfisnt to aifiefid the

menmxandum of appeal. Mi$c.Cvi.No. ,

13329; 2609 is

2. _ 1i:a§”fil:::d’ a tfresh valuaaon memo

{J11 27.0?,2GQ9; V “::r;§§’ the amenémsnt to the

mcmorafidzm oi””3.§_3péa}, ofi’a’:e is directed to COII1}}1″fi’€; the

“iL:=¢ payaigié 011 the memorandum {If appeal

is directed to pay 1:118 craurt the

accoi’ding1§r’.’ A

‘A T Po§§a_>:§:e appeaz on IZ)§.08.2Q{)9.

Sd/3;

Juddé