Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
(By Sri MA’V. Ramana, AdvocatE AND: S.mt, Bhagirathi. Caflin4 herself as Wife oi Kalappa Paoar P Biraciar, Pge: Major, 0cc: Household. R/o, Nidon.i, TaPiR i4 His 1: tiliapur. Petitioner Ey Sri. S.W. P. rhatti, Pnlvoeat.e) rce5por1Oeni This. RE. is filed u.n.der Ord.er 47 Rule .i of CPC praying IOU UVVI\V 01 1he Order doled P 1 -070007 rsseo in EPA Li o4OOO/2OOO, on the file of the l-Ion’ble I 1ith Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This petition is comin&, Court made the lo1]owIric for orders on this day, ORDER Both the parties have settled the matter amicably and accordint1v. filed a Joint Memo of Settlement. The petition is disposed of in terms of the joint memo of settlement. Sdf JUDGE j NM
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.