articles and important
documents and photographs were kept by the complainant, namely, Randy
Singh Sandhu, which were stolen. Counsel further contends that the
petitioner-Simarjit
deeds, execution of the power--of,_a3ttorn'e'y'Randy not that the
plaintiff did not have the paIa
suits is entirely distinct
The cause of action of the two suits randy'
different. Hence, Section 10 of is it
8. In the case
extent. of Rsy..524'3,6'85.8-ép/Randi the excess
amount an of 4,60,719.67p/--. The figures
séazing that ififlé '-éenkata Randy, was nni
;;7§:':>;:e:f§y-'V"§:sn~ébul::ng {he §nnég:*a%ns frnn
Zonal office at
Banigaviorey. rrgaterial particulars of mispiacing the fiie,
randy who'4.is>r_esponsible for the same, and the dates
score _t'hat'1;the dates {were altered 'randy: without considering
as to who without looking into the
correspondence b¢twv§§ifiii
Bangalore E315 _» '- .. Fefitiane:
(By ._ _ for M/3 Randi Law
Associa'€;m,4.Advv¢;¢-aj;r.a}« .. __ .. _
Azfi; _v
§?u1'a1 Feline Statisn
1da1c:kl1-.1 Building.
2""! F1001'. QLICCP.-.\' Randy' . V'
Bz111§gz1l():"c V
u Rmptmdcnts
rged--1_'~.,t _
R/IS1PI3e Lmganna' Randy... "
Opp. Europ Tailors " v
Mudugalkai"--Building} ' Q -
Koppal
