Sri Syed Athaulla Sha vs Sri V V Gopala Bhatta on 4 December, 2009

RNATAKA HIGH COURT OF   

 

I-L
.:: E'
' 3
O
U
I
9
I
 
or
5
ll-
0
5':
D
O
U
I
9
I
S
5
5
E
!

 éRIA\h»?;GciPALA BHAITA.

 

SR1 SYEDATAULLA   % 
3/0 3121 SYEDVEABRU1 Dumas",  x 
maou'r[74  k  1; %
R/AT HD2131",         
EWS urr srngm,  coLor.*y._%% 

arc»  BHATTA,
AGE D'.ABC'UT GOYEARS,

  R/AT 110.42.    '

, A.NHAP°JRI'lA HHAYA. NUGGILIPALYA.

  _.UL1ALA vpzuwncan mar,
%  A B.qxaa1oRE-seocse.

 RESPONDENT

‘I’.C.Satish Kumnr, Adv.)

THIS MFA FILED U/8 173(1) 01:’ MVACT AGAINST

JUDGMENT mm AWARD DATED 31.10.2005

PASSED IN MVC NO. 1403/ 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL JUDGE. C90 MEMBER MACT,

”

103 HQIH VXVLVNXVV -“”‘ “””””” ‘ ‘ ‘

EA NGAI.ORE .. RESPOHDEITIS
“(By 31-: T.C.Sa1:iah Kumar, Adv. for R1

and Sn’ Bopanna as Gin’, Adv. for R2)

*0? HQIH VHVLVNHVH :IO Minn’: um… …-

ms MFA mm am 173;: 3 9? was? aams?

‘TIE mmmm ARE &WAR}.'”} Ifififffifi 3«3;m2e:;::ev%.
FA§SEfi fii Mm §Q.s259/zmz cm mm 13″;.’–:{.§EvQ§”*-“‘I”£$’
IV ADIDFTEQHAL JUDGE, SSS v V
§xE’I’RGPOLI’E&£I AEA, HA3?-.}#.§»;QRE, “{@CH’~.~§}_.;– i
msmsmm ‘mm CLAIM} ,Rt«::’I*:*%1Jm1~*i–

Cfllifi §’S£L’£§C}E° .

zmsa was mrvméazrz fifigemmms % %

my; ‘rm £01321’ fiELIVEREI3″”£Eji’Ei.V}?'<3L1%;?;3i§(m:Gv{§:

Bath the saw
pmm flag;-:%% 39.1-4a3;20o.3
wlw aha MW 5259; was
amt ' a;_ppé1I&11£ is that «aha MAC'?
but an fiw afiwr haw;

S253 am $3: mmza Exam tlw

_§§as,.N§3i§®3 arrzd ti1mf§r¢5 tiiaaa ma:

:« ‘gag; ,\sI>’- ‘1’» -y*, R M. u .» m