%gTg';;%%sr: ;'§;vB.' GC§UDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE.)
Q * $12113 <3. JAYAPRAKASH
-L S/{) L s CHANMASHEKARAIAH
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA,
mama THIS THE 3&2 DAY A V'
BEE0R3:§j-__ L. x
THE HUMBLE MR. A.Atm' J
R.SV._&,V.No '}:xf2.7p:'}i,e§:i<:;€:.' .
of ofiiaze objectians, a perempt0ryWo1d€r_*Wavs ::'paSsedV o_n"=
22.9.2006
granting three weeks gig’
comply with the ofiice oh}ectV1lo§1:s~;..V_VThén”ofiicsVA§bj&§libns’lwere”V V
not compfiad With. Hgmce, st.é6L§:.aut,(;mat_ically
fiismissed. fiance, api}H€#$.€iol:g ll condonation 0f
delay as well as’ _fi3-ru i2.9.2(}O6.
7. E hays’ appearing for the
defencla,n.ts_§§’nff€:1£§27%}:$_. [A L ‘V V b’
8. ‘;1’The–. the l’6Sp{)11dC1’1tS for p€rma:ne:1t
injurictioh ‘that the appellants are trying
eligibita for regularisation as per guiclelines issued by flaw
‘J
is in possession of the suit schedule
series of interference by the defencigxats. I~Ee12:§;f
suit is filed for permaneni iI1junTctiQn. 3
4. Tha defendants enterffi’ flied the
Written statement. file 131101 in
question is 3. fgrcst anti as such it
belengs to the ‘f:§1::i.1f_V;.fiz:1’t11c:r case that the
claim of flit; has been mjecteé. can
14.9.:19§4;- V ‘ ‘ I
5. ‘3’.hé fiavixlg regard to the yleadings
has ‘decféed £;%3cfl that the plaifltiff shali 3103; be
djsfsosfiéssed Si%i§hQ11.t«’du€: process of law. As against which
‘ vd¢3f;¢:2Vc1:;¢i1::s_p;*efe1*red a Regular Appeal bcfore the Adcil.
H V Chikmagalur. The learned App-zzllatt: Judge
t0 the judgment and decree of the trial court
V, A’i1i’:iS_C() I”1fiI’IIlffC3 the same obsexving that before evicting the
21 s:umn1-ary’ enquiry is rftquired to be held as
‘ VV “fi1iI’t:Ctc:d by {ha Apex Court. / M