High Court Karnataka High Court

Yelhanka Merchants Finance Co. vs Panduranga Rao on 4 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Yelhanka Merchants Finance Co. vs Panduranga Rao on 4 June, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi


-3-

2. It appears that, there was a delay in filing the complaint,

in this ‘regar€i, he had filed an appiication for e{)11dona.1io;3 of

deiay. However, pefitioxzer remained absent 01::

27.32097, 10.4.2007, 31.5.20o?,’14.8.2007 ané_:”e..:-i;’:e5i?e,’e

Noticing the lapse on the part of the pe’fitioner”_’a11c¥”

interest in prosecufing the matter, the ‘TMa»g’i:§1.tIate«.

option except to dismiss the

3. Learned Co”:.111se1 ‘ submits
various grounds for the gmunds
couid be appxeciafetieveensideraiion that
the case it1volveieVc’fi’i:»§’*.s:1£»i1.t”>”n’;:11J.t:r”:c:§;fi.*: of Rs.89,,41(}/– in

my opi:1ion;Te::?ie

Aceo:’ciieg;:3{f,’,e allowed. The order dated

6311.200?’ “passeei the X11 Addl.{3.M.M., Bangalore in

is set aside subject to peiifioner ciepesiting

cosit~- §.T’v-viiefoxe the State Legal Sezviees Authority.

VLea1nee1″-..Mag”ieUfé§te is directed to take up the matter from the

” i5;5;’£*«.<–2_t_5g'e ef of the complaint If the petitioner makes two

m:i%.§;;: defaults, the Magjisixate is 3: liberty to dismiss the

'

sdl-1,
'judge

KNM/–