Smt Gowramma W/O Late Kala Arasaiah vs Gayathri Women'S Welfare Association on 23 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Gowramma W/O Late Kala Arasaiah vs Gayathri Women'S Welfare Association on 23 July, 2008

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

IN THE HKEH <:c>um' OP' KARNATAKA AT BA:~:(:.A;;<ﬁ'§«'_1«:.:?*,
BATED THIS Tm: 238:0 my 0? J:,t..r;}_i?;   .
BEFORFJW J  V  V V
THE HoN'BLI:: MR, JUSTICE 1ia:fN.;q.g§}AP.4#éHA-2%'  
R.F.A,Nr::.1782}'2€§G5 V  * Vv 1   .'
BETWEEN:   'L %

1. SMT. Gowﬁamzigm. %    *-
W/O LATE KALA'AR:1.SA_IAI:I ._ 
AGED ABOUT 75'':€vE;_x_I»»:s_ ; 

2. SRI.K.;AR'A53E GOWDA 

S] Q .£,ATEi'lf1{ﬁ§LA£R2%SA£.AH' V
AGE?) i§d3{)U'F-- 55"';f.i?f.E§2'*---S.-- ' 
_I%30mAi<;3:--:;;2Es--11j;.z$:'G Am. 

:V'R;o'39i},:, I':MAIN«R€)AD

:3rH. CRO'::'§S:;.. :j;;Y}a%3f1::';N'AGAR
BAN!}ALOVREj «-56{}_ 023,. ,.. APPELLANTS

(BYSRI :}i~3~;pg:'.AR:;:NA";«'C51é KESVY Arm COMPANY}

 . j<;LAy:=cfH~Ri«.im_MEN*s WELFARE ASSQCIATION
  'I*«: Q.'3;:3:Z:2; 4T¥1_j:'siAIN, 5TH CROSS
~i"'E1--ENYIi m.D'LFs"FRIAL ESTATE

B;&_NGAVLGR;E-'T-- 560 022
RE? BY ITS PRESIBENT

 SMT.B_.I_<~. SARASWATHAMMA  RESPONDENT

5.' .g:B9r_sR1; mt NARASIMHAN, ADV) THIS RFA FILE'-D U/S96 OF' CFC AGAENST THE "'-JUDGMENT ANB DEGREE DT.4.8.2OOE3 PASSED IN O.S,NO.163f99 ON THE F¥LI:'§ OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL \V)____j\..../ JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH~13), DECREEKNG THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIQN.

M m1s.coM1NG om my HEARING THIS".If}AY;g'T_HE Covm DELIVERED ma FOLLOWIi'€G;-- % JEQDGMENT This appeal is directed '1 é '4 decree dated 04.08.2005 m,o.s.n¢.%:as;9g;mgea by 'i:::1:a"'s,!p Additional City Civil Judge,""'L4I§é;a.gaiore d"e'gc4:réVéing mg suit. of the plaintiﬁ' fir>;:_'grazifmdf-:'p3fi;;*.3.neniHiixjiinctican and dismissing the ceunter :

is b§fé31j€:'._ court. For c0nve11i.encc, the paxticswcﬁ r*efeii*rr3éi Vstatus befom the trial court. 'V 'I'11€:V"1:%1§2f=V:_§i1tit'£': is an Associatimiz registered under the R¢gistIatiou Act. The plaiﬁtiffs centend that they ;2'~écms. 30 guntas of land in Sy.N0.11{}f2 sf Léxgge::é'Vi§1age (the schedule property) under an ag:r€sme.I1t gf '$2215 dated 26.11.1988 from its vendors Sri_ A' 'B«.{f.Vijayakumar and Smt.Mayamma. In part performance of

- this agreement of sale, the plaintiffs were put in passession OW of the schedule pmpeﬁy ans} they are in peaceful p0Sv{$€_e"$Si{3n 311:1 enjoyment of the same. In the m0nth__--§f 1998, the defendants tried ta i11teA;§ft'ere wiiigr = possession and enjoyment of the seheﬁtiie V am":

therefore, they ﬂied O.S.NQ.e15§/9§?".f§)'i pemzanent injunctian.

4. The defendaefs before the trial comm' W§fiffer;:V§?:aetei§3e;ef[- contending that they am 3:21;; in smug. 110/ 1 of trespassing into their pmpeiijy. the claim of the plaintiffs.

On the 'baeie the trial court framed the f0}}ej§¥i:1g.theee"iseiies for consideraﬁen:

. 1? Whemer the galaimiﬂ" gmves that it has been eelaﬁtﬁzl possession of the suit schedule ' 'iizfoiécrtﬁf?

A1' Whef:11er the piaintiﬁ' proves iI}.tCI'ffSI'611C€:? To What order and reliefs the parﬁes am entitled?

ab'/\/K

5. Before the tria} court, the p}aintiﬁ' e3_;<@:§.1_;'i<::d six wimcsses as PWS 1 to 6 and god; marked ___'_f'I1e defcndants examineci one Witness as SW4;

EXs.D1 to D44. The ma: court after-hééiﬁz-:g': goth' "t*I!*1}€:___Vp§£.~':;t«ies and on appreciation of th;=:' 1-1.__l.e:a.dﬁ§1*;a.:;$"<>ra1 evidsnce on 1151001159. held gaeaceful possession and §I'0P€1't}' aﬂfi theme is iBt6Ff8I'€ﬂC€A"b_§€ co11ssque:11t1y, ciecreeci t}1§::' iﬁhe ; injunction vi-:13 J Aggrieved by this juc1;,iijj§:q:§t[A court, the defendants app£c'.:~ac$i§.¢ci ..Rf'A No.49'?/G2. This Court vide- j{1dg[H6£1f allowed the appeal, set aside tha a;1€i d€2*Ci'€E: ef the trial CO"f.'iI"t and remanded the ' 'tﬁe court for fresh disp-ssal in accmrdance with .' . jilotxrt while retmandiug the matter observed as Para-5: "'I'i1eref0re, keeping in Vi€fW the submissions made, I deem it desirabie that fresh smvey is to be carried out in this suit by the A.D.i.-.R. by giving ngtice to both the parties and OW' in their preserace the smvey is to be made. The appellants are hewever entiﬁeci to produce records of the survey dzme eariier as additional document before the trial Coiiet' 'V' aﬁer survey, considering the Qi"'VA.T.f:i1e Surveyor and the aciditionaime1'ee13ni.e111;3,j ﬁ5A.a_g;3§i'.v and if necessary' 'by allowfizg evfideizee, 7]' trial court shall dispose-Qf the with law."

6. After remanci" Vé the defendants amended their i?1eor§0rate:i counter claim t%j"cf;eﬁv:}Iish the structures put up su§::seq§1e11t: :ejr';'_t1ie sfatus qua Grder by the trial Court m~;'z,1_;e v.se'11ee1u1e'«.§roperty' mentioned in the written statemeAm_.V Te' fJj;11:S___C_??;}liIktC1" claim ofdefe11da1r£s, the plaintiffs » ;f1iedV zexiftexlivsiatement. G13. the 'basis of the amended court framed the foﬁotving two additional issiies:"- A ' 4' V 1} Whether the defendants prove {hat the plaintiff Asseciation have erecteei temperaxy sheds an the schedule ygmperty subsequent to passixzg of interim order 32.11 the above said suit. V. 2} Whether the defendants are e11title§:" H Ieiief of Mandatory ¥z_1j_111}¢tiQn;"'b'y'* counter ciaim.

T. After remand and 'additigziﬂ. isSu6:E3, 'bnVﬂ1%. the parties adduced ora1"V"*e§;$Tid<:nce ﬁzwiucrzrd additional documentS}'.'~~Fu:t1i€f,,'Agist ;§é'r_«the éliitciicns issued by this cc:2urt in RFA Court appointed ABLE' as Q-a't2rt_'. cgmngéssioﬁér gag-$63.: the schedule pmgéffj? as» of i\£i§'4tvn1cti0ns ef both the parties. Accei;{2.irig13§ fk;é:C3oi1rtﬁ C<d:nmissier;er conciucteti survey of th£_scheCiiz1¢ };1rO;3efZ37VSi»i1d submitted his 1'6p<)I't to the trial T313 C0{irf'€0313.missiencr was exanzined as CW---1 and V 3" documents came to be marked as Ex.C1 to .' fﬁal Court after hearing both the parties and on apf)m;:'ia£fon of the pleadings, era} and documsntaxy éiiiriancr: on recard passed the impugned judgment and gd e;:m on 04.08.2005 dacrezeing the suit of plaintiffs and r>U'V\"

dismissing the counter ciaim of defendants. Hczace, this appeal by the daféndams.

8. Sri.Shantharaj, Laaaxned S€I1iC)3'----»fiéC}11vIvlS;'~V"'é:Z «for; defendants fairly submits that 1;; §1:a$' z,:<§'.gfic:f;2aIic¢;3 as the judgmcam: and dec1fz?e. of suit of 131a:i31tiﬁ's. But. it is {(2 gIasé'i;fi§§gii%§*it1;{':§rei;emnce £0 the survey co11aiuc:t€:§ ';,1A§;r this court, He €3€)1'1t6I1t';1$ that deéﬁifg available 011 I'€C€3I'd, the; in not decrecing the vréjected tbs counter clairu on The failure to consider the admit'ied:" £'-1::v:1'!;S'-- documentary evidence on :jc~jCci;'d b}*Vt'r;c:_V_t:"iai Ceiirt has resulted in failure sf justicne. " A placed on the following des::1'sio11s:~ V'1}"~A'izs ?:§wARDAs Vs. THE STATE 0:? MADHYA ' *PRADESH AND OTHERS reparted in AIR 19?9 ' SUPREME COURT 531.

23 SAMPATPI KUMAR Vs. AYYAKANNU AND ganaram reported in JT 2002(2) SC 182.

?\2'\ GL*V 3; JAG MQHAN CEHAWLA AND ANOTHER'-

DERA RADHA swam; sTAsA:~:G ANE¥~«£3'3f'§jIf_<.§I?.S:V"

reported in Am was SUPREME c0z. r_1'+':'£f 2222:; T} A' 4} K.MO{'}SA H2%JJI'S w1:3éw's.;mf, a:Aé{:m:>%%:Y%r'; smssu Arm o'rI~1E:i~?.s Vé.

omcm sm::£:T ut;A1<is§~1:§zi:V =:s;Alg¢z.s:;§Az41A% TEMPLE mpmed Am %L:~:99'6 SIJQREME C€i{.,¥RT

5) NANQGRI :[Yo::é;z§A:{r;--A'.wV. " LAKSHMI- NARAS¥_MH£aCH2'~'§§I 'A1:$Z.{;} V'GT§%}{iERS Vs. Sm gg;r;;;gfg:r:41'E:$§e?AR_As\»{AMV:"x*A;2z} reported in AIR i'39z§£;v';s"I}iéRm«ii::A€::<::i;R;I§6<*..22.

6), Si3'i€'1N£§ERT Vs. KAPQOR SING}-I (DEAD) AV *mRo.Ijt:§H."i;;§s;.w~%LAND OTHERS reported in V' fgcasya, SLI_i5'REiME czozmr CASES 142. Fer¢€3'.£1tr;1,_A£éI'i.K.V.1\Ia1*asimhan, learned counsel for » Dt31_¢ p.1_a'i:1££i:f5cQntend that undﬁr the agreement cf sale dated 2 piaintiffs are put in possession of the land survey conducted in tha year 198:. Now the V " yrgsefit survey in 2003 indicates that the plaintiffs am in vﬁosisession of a portion in Sy.No.110/ 1 and aﬂether portion Sy'.Ne.110/2. Themfere, he contends that uniess, the {7L:~.»"

plaintiﬁs are legally dispessessed by due procﬁss of law. they are entitled to continue in the §c>riio11 occupied. in S3aNo.11{}/ 01. He supports the ﬁecree of the trial Ceurt. Reiiaace is placceti foHo7§éi11g""'~-- d$<:1s1::)}:1s:-

1) PARVA'I'§iAMMA V%Lo1:;;b:%A'r§{' .:¥e'1§:g:':=:ec:": in ILR1991KAR695.

=23 RCIHIT sI1$za:';§};1A:s:D2.j_'::§T;»£'1§;§s.»vs. STATE OF BIHAR (N{}\3§" ; . JHARKHAND) I'6'})€3'};'ﬁi€£1..iﬁiiﬁffg'2QG? 3ﬁPRE§f'iECE comm' 10. 1Q; am both the side and perused the entire ' atpépﬁsai' pzilaéfrﬁ: ' xécorcl S. 1x. 1t i$*:1Q1i__i_t1 dispute that the claim of the plamﬁﬂs ' 'f<:r d¢Cre€._{5f germanent injnnction is in respect of the piajnt H = The piaint schedule garoperty is 2 acres am 130" §1m1:as in Sy.N0.}.10/2 of Laggem Village. The V " contend that as per the survey of the year 1981, 'théy were put in possession of a portion in Sy.No.E 10/1 and 'T a portion in Sy.No.110/2. "§'he material on rccerd discloses that as per Exi)-8 the order dated 22.06.1998 in JDLR K, Ow, ,;g-

appeal No.4/99, the Joint Director of Land R€c0r:i3V_}s£:§'.a;Side the suxvay dated 24.031981. This antic: of Land Records is prior to ﬁling afguit bef;:rrr.:= 't:~a:a.1_c;a_{n~t, on 06.01.1999. Either at the .

subseqtlr.-'int ti) ﬁling 0f ﬂit:-s11i?; ' ﬂié _VVha§re amended the plaint coI1tez1di1;§"Vt#l:7£z:1tVVt11ca_f';*' pégssession of a porfien in S3*.No.'1 it3./1 V%'é.{..V_}3;)fti{}n Iv$Fy.No.110/2.

Even to this day, remained that they are 39 glmtas in Sgaﬂo. 11:i§?:2:;:_"_" 32 acres 30 gunias in Sy.N§§;'1'iOiA;L§:V5»v'_vi§'« sgééiﬁész in the survey sketch year 2003 as found at Ex.(3«3.

Land' plaintiffs under the agreement of c?,_3ﬁed.. 26.1xi;'1€~3*88 in Sy.N0.1 10/ 2 to an extent cf 2 acres V gimated at Laggere Village is shmv1:1 in gxeen "a;§'£§11;~ .é§$ 3€;FH in Ex.C--3. The claim of plajntriffs for dame of 'pefilgaiaent ixtjunction is also in mspect of land in their pkiasassion under the agreement of sale to an exfent of 2 '§a<':i'Aes :30 guntas ii} Sy§Nca.11{)/2 cf Laggcrc Village. L£ar11ed seniar counsel far the defendants fairly submit that hf} has k, EVNJ -11- no objectien for grant sf decree sf permarient i11junc!:io:1 in favoztr of the piaintiﬂis as speciﬁed in the sursrgf-.¢;$"i§§tch Ii}x;C»3. Thcmgh the: trial Caurt granted d::c1~ee__j€_§f i:1ju11<:tiou in favour 91" the plaintiﬁs, the sa;:3.:2_:'§3aS--~.i1et 't;::j:én..» slaxiﬁed with refarence to the 31114363? sketch, I{.(f:epi:1:g;-i;_a V3':-xix; '€113 ciirectigvns issued by t11iss.4_C;Qu:1:._<:n earlri-:érAV.:.§ccasif;oI1' RF-'A Ncr.49'?'_!O2, the present is é29'n,c'i:i1cvied:'§;1 the year 2903 and Ex.C-3 is 21I}.'>«*9;11t :é€§m£§ V survéf. "'V!'he:'e is no digpute iaetwéren the parfie_$ fs'§c;.«fgii"A--§£;$__'§S111ve3* Ex.C~3 is concemsd. 'I§i1£;:w§:§?3:'e, the i}3ipt1g§ie{i»j1:_:;{5gmcnt and {iecree of the :::5i'c:<:;£:x5: f'rc§,'x;i§5m 51:: modiﬁed. Specifying that of Qermanent i11jtmctjo3:1 in respect of4"':=c1iet11i;1e as spaciﬁed in survey sketch '~ _ ;;m3,_1'k€d 'i11"sg1*::é11 colour as AEFH. 3 T. 12.; Q10: in ciispute batween the parties that after }:this Court, the defendants ﬁled an application fer agméxadment cf the written statement to incorporate the A of counter Claim for mandatozy izljzlnctziczn. The triai ~;Zom*t allmszcd thc agypliztation ﬁled by the defendants to aamsnd the written statemtmi. After amendizig the written aA~J\--

"gig-

statement by the dafendaxits, the plainfiifs ﬁled written saatemam. On the basis of 'these amended ;:ﬁeadi1;_gs, the trial (Sour: frameé the acidi.tie11a}issues. On the bmig-.._;§£_this additional issues, both the guarties adduced 3130 giaceri zsiactmientaxg-' evidence.mA3 CiiI€«;"tE:d--- . in R§'M:o,497/02, the trial cow app;;in£e;1"a'z:m§:ft.___gx;;LR as Ceurt Commissioner he hag. _ Submi.£té{i&* vav _1'e;g§o1*tA 2003. The rﬁzport cf the tf;;:u§-2% _c,or3::a:;§s'i§n¢';; La- the Surveyor sgeciﬁes t11€;..1.:i£;:rtic'_i1 by the piaintiffs in Sy.Ne.110/1 of tbs I.;ggg'€r§: is the schedule prgp;::%:j%7':n.. ..'.g*:ate:iié::tT. The trial Court without consiéaﬁng V3:hiVs evidence availabie on recon! rejected :r_)f""i:1Vefendsznts fer couznter ciaim on '~ szjfrrnigzca Cénjas-rams. Further, it is seen from the record ' _ in which was fied on 06.01. 199% it was :3tz£téd t11é£t'j_fQ9£ere are only 9 sheds pui up by the plainﬁﬁs in t11e"p1;$i:;i.Vscheduie property. Undisputed survey sketch new " » A:ai;ai}'a.1t2V'le before: the court indica1:e3 ths luzmbex" of sheds put 'g,1i§"bj: the plaintigtfs both in Sy.Nr.::«.11{O/2 and also in u 'Sy.No.11(Z3/ 1. Again the tria}. Court committed an emar in not 0b,.,\_, ._V<.'\_ _-

-11- .2 congidetrixzg this material available: an rerrorci. The trial Court procﬁeds on the premise that the Vanda}: of thgvT1:;'_1:-:§1:1tifi's might have cncroached a partion ef S3r_._F$I{)'.' consequently he might have put thtif» . 1'1,: 'the' possession of the same in 1988 :and:.f§iej.:'éf9fé_."thé' helcis that the plaintiffs ma3z4_'13ro%i£::%i"--to the plaintiffs by fzaling a $ei§é:»%;tc _:~mitV." case if plaimiffs that tlmir véjizdor statement {schedule property) are put in pasgsasiengsf séznsg This'«..:~"§p;§1va_a;;§i of '£1116 tria} Court is basfjti Vmé1'1u cﬁiijééuams and centmry to the evidcé§ncé._ arid: recoml. This is an illegality cemmitféd By On this gmtmd, the impugned 'dseiiaa ef the trier} Court dismissing the ' .'. f:J<')1.§I'£3:éY the ésfendants is liable ts: be set aside. the gzasndency of th:i$ appeal, the defﬁndants haw an application seaking amendment 9f tha written " » 7s'*£atement to include additionai prayer of counter claim for fssfsevtzry of pesseasian, cf the: written statement (gcimduie ' preperty} from the plaixltiﬁs. The plainﬁffs have not ﬁleé any ﬂw,

-14..

cbjectiens to this application. In the nozma1_4vV¢§§u§':§¢ an ayplicatian for amendment 3f the 'mitten sf:i'7i stage is net entsrtainablex Butxixz th€f"'i}£'S§':'§.i'1f"';C'EIS€, éispute is pending between f"igi.1£. freﬁViifégfsﬁféar 1931 when the first survey -was }é«:>;ic'i:.1ctc-:.i'.'"'IfE1$MC:i§}*ii Suit» bamveen the paﬁtziss is gaenﬁiihagg from"}3earfg1999. The couuter claim of th€:;:_§I'ef:n4;'ia,n:.tA fz3;jf Vxﬁandatoxjs injunctian is alreadjg tlicre on recozfd 'fzot questioned by ma other ;=;iﬂf::g.(. -.I;n, fiiieliticgal""c§réi1'm$£;énc&s, the Supreme Court in :<§a1:::"'1;_éLi §5ai13;"'§?.{§"?';1¥3;af'vSingh regorted in AIR 1935 8:: 8:5?"'1'1e1§i{ia_s A V"'.?.'.V case it has not been siiaéggi; vie L1sV'::.§1a$ @316: aypsllant had came to the @111': 2*.?iﬂ: thé suit for mandatory injunction i.;»-::fta'rA.a113.:* C€)ii$ide:*ab1e delay which W131 disentitle

-vthc discretienary rciief. Even if there W33 " ézéiégr, we think $1131: in a case of this kind shauld be made to avoid multiplicity crf ~~ vstzits and the Iicensor should net be driven to ﬁlét anether rounci of suit with all the attendant delay, tmuble and expense. The suit is in effect one for passession though couched in the form of a suit for mandatoxy injunction as what would W .15..

be given to the plaintiff' in case he succc_t:£iV$..<_;is.._ possession of the property to which h¢*'*m'z_-gr fmmé ta be entitled. Therefore, We %-age .(:f..ii1é - -- opinion that the appellant; shquid ;3':i5tV'bé';vdéi1ié_;_€1 relief mereiy because he had icoijchegi' ; .A in the form of a suit for marxriatsxy inj'1i.;1.<}tion."=--¢

14. In View of this of 'Suﬁzjcme Court, having regard to iheiﬁicts this case, it is net proper for this comt to {is another suit 1'es111tL*1g'3;(§1' By aﬂowing the appﬁcaﬁén tziakgzmérici the counter claim in theﬂr w1fAixt"té:if; by incorgorating the additional prayé'1~§0r Vpo'ss3_és§j§io1i save the tima, trouble, delay and expens5s . I:1V cioiﬁig epportunity is 1:9 be provided. to the " V. ' .110 f3léH"éd«§iitioI1a1. writtelz statement and ta take V tilldfﬁl' law and also to head additiomal "r:_'§%ida;3.r:£éL' both the parties. in tha CiI'{f11£{}StaI1C:€S, the apgﬁiiéatien ﬁlcéi by the defendants fer amendment 0f the ' , ivéiﬁtten statement is liablé to be aﬁeweé. d__,\J"

-1ﬁ..

For the reasons stated above, fhff foEa:>wi.ug;~

3) 3} GREEK The appaal is partly allows"-3d' The impugned jzzzigmazzi and {1€,{.'E"€'C :a(}fV trial {Z-a:}ur€ decreeizzg the gziﬁt z3f'.';§Xé3.i::.:é?i;f3,' i"b:f"_ §?é€§Bf1€£118I1i izijuzzctzion is! $i3 tA'.,"€:-i:f_'§'§_1..'1'g _ mat ma plain': $€h¢d.11IeA ';3f%;'p§;:my V' ShO'eE3I1 in green £91621: Stzzvcify EX.C-3.

The defe11da1:1i:s0r under them are here'Qy_ re:~s;i;ra§i11t°:d from intezferaiggi. from $315' peaaé'éii11V_. §}T{iS$€ssion and e1:';jT%:i1;§?i£§e_:;;tn}.g:i"?;1:f:£:«:.plaizzt Schﬁdlilti prepsrty as _ étatéd. ~., , -- 43 Céi11't------ﬁismissing the cmintsr claim of §:1V:1},>1.:'1gI1éd «judgment anti decrtte czf the , 'ﬂZt3Vfi'$f€11fiaRt8 is hérreby set aside. V..:§1§13Iication ﬁled by the dafendalzts fer "--VAai:};t9::1d1nent 0f the colmter claim is her:.:~'::y

- aﬂevred.

The learned 001111561 for the defendants to amend that colmter ciaim cf thf': xssrittezl statement §".3€fGI€' th: trial Court within two &,~z""' -17- waeiezs {mm the date {Bf zecaipt of the order. Thﬁ trial Cmjrt to pmvide an Gppaiftznitg? to £116 glaizztiﬁs to file adefiﬁ.io31aI 1z.?1fiff{t*§f; gtafameixt for $113 <r0u11t€.r strlaim azid' rieiridé ma rzaattsr 2'11 accordantre _v§§it1i"wwV1a*:3;§f ¥' after pmvidiim an oppozﬂmity g;Vj%_"£3QfliA.T.:'%}1e 1 }t>a..rt3;f:$.

In View at." £116 fact r3:;éz__ §}.{'€8d§:,8}"}¥,1}1{iE1fi'I "

evicience availahié £?%i1~v..§'6C{?ﬁ;§ 592151' Vti"j1e'"'.::ié§tEe'i* £3 pending far a 1o'i:ig £3316, «--dTi§";:¥ctién is ixsrab}? §S$1.Ff¥{§;~..'_tG {lie _ . V(f,:':;v.I,1r1: ta Aéfﬂaedite the matter ate 'ii1t2. <§':3.;1nter claim <}ft,hs.4iefe11c:£a:1T.S:;¢3sV 6:g}:;¢é§,ii91.i $.1§9 as possible am in iatcar'_h1...e_1n feur mcsnths .f:t)m the <:Iatf:-- of 1'"r3§f€:§§;'tT.<f.if~ 01" this order. Ordreraazi accbzgiinvgly. A "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court