Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,040 of 17th August 2018

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), entered on the 19th day of June, 2018, in the records of the Application of Appeal in the names MaltaPost plc (C 22796) vs The Planning Authority et, Application of Appeal number 29/2018, it was ordered that service upon Mona Farrugia Partners (P Comm 168) previously Mona Farrugia Limited (C 48565) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), in the names MaltaPost plc (C 22796) vs The Planning Authority et on the 18th day of May, 2018, MaltaPost plc (C 22796) respectfully submitted:

That on the 7th day of March, 2016, the permit with the number DN 02045/15 was issued for the placing of tables and chairs in Triq l-Isqof in Valletta in front of the food and beverage establishment named Angelica;

That subsequently the appellant requested the application of Article 80 of the Development Planning Act 2016 in order to revoke the said permit and this for the reasons given in the aforementioned Application of Appeal;

That on the 27th day of October, 2016, the Planning Board rejected the appellant’s request;

That on the 24th day of November, 2016, the appellant filed an Appeal Application before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) wherein it requested the Tribunal to hold and declare that the permit with the number DN 02045/15 is invalid and should therefore be revoked for all purposes and effects of law;

That on the 3rd day of May, 2018, the Tribunal delivered its decision … omissis … Therefore, the appeal is being rejected;

That the facts of this case are briefly narrated in the abovementioned Application of Appeal;

That the grievances are clear and manifest and are as follows: 1) The Tribunal failed to adhere to Policy number 18 of the guidelines entitled ‘Policy, Guidance and Standards for Outdoor Catering Areas on Public Open Space’ issued in 2016 by the Malta Tourism Authority, Planning Authority, Government Property Department and Transport Malta and to Article 71(4)(i) of Cap. 552 when it ruled that the declaration of ‘ownership’ and the notification to the owner id est the Department of Lands were correct … omissis …; 2) The Tribunal failed to adhere to Article 80 of the Development Planning Act 2016 when it concluded that the applicant had not provided any mistaken or misleading information … omissis …;

Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the appellant whilst referring to all the records of the cause and reserving to adduce further evidence and make further submissions as necessary and permitted by law, respectfully asks this Honourable Court of Appeal to uphold the grievances raised by it and this for the reasons given in the abovementioned Application of Appeal and consequently revoke the decision of the Tribunal and refer back the records of the cause to the Tribunal so that it decides the appeal anew taking into consideration the decision of this Court. With the costs of all instances against the appellees.

Appellant: MaltaPost plc (C 22796), 305, Qormi Road, Marsa

Services: Mona Farrugia Partners (P Comm 168), 12, St Mary Street, Gudja

The Planning Authority, St Francis Ravelin, Floriana

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the Civil Court (Family Section), entered on the 24th day of April, 2018, in the records of the Application in the names Esther Mifsud (ID 269674M) vs Stephen Mifsud (ID 17672M), Application 72/2018 AL, it was ordered that service upon Stephen Mifsud (ID 17672M) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of an Application filed in the Civil Court (Family Section), in the names Esther Mifsud (ID 269674M) vs Stephen Mifsud (ID 17672M) on the 9th day of February, 2018, the applicant Esther Mifsud (ID 269674M) asked this Honourable Court to:

1. Pronounce divorce between the parties, and

2. Order the Registrar of Courts to, within a specified period of time to be fixed by this Honourable Court, notify the Director of the Public Registry of the said divorce so as to be enrolled in the Public Registry.

Applicant: Esther Mifsud (ID 269674M), 25, St Anthony Street, Ħamrun

Services: Stephen Mifsud (ID 17672M), Flt 18, Archbishop Gonzi Flats, Mountbatten Street, Ħamrun

The Application in the names Esther Mifsud (ID 269674M) vs Stephen Mifsud (ID 17672M) was deferred for hearing to the 15th day of November, 2018, at 9.15 a.m.

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the First Hall of the Civil Court, entered on the 4th day of June, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Hal Mann Vella Limited (C 28088) vs Annabelle Bastjana Debono (ID 339990M) et, Sworn Application number 480/18 LM, it was ordered that service upon Annabelle Bastjana Debono (ID 339990M), and Maxime Altare (ID 77803A) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Hal Mann Vella Limited (C 28088) vs Annabelle Bastjana Debono (ID 339990M) et on the 16th day of May, 2018, Hal Mann Vella Limited (C 28088) asked this Honourable Court, to allow its demands without proceeding to trial in terms of Articles 167 through 170 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and: 

1. Pronounce that the defendant/s is/are a debtor/s of the applicant company in the sum of €22,338.01 representing the amount owed by the defendant/s to the applicant company for the supply and sale of stones and material ordered by the said defendant/s, and

2. Order the defendant/s to pay to the applicant company the above indicated amount of €22,338.01.

With court costs and interest as demanded against the defendant/s as of now summoned so that a reference to their oath be made. All rights pertaining to the applicant company for the cost of works carried out by it in favour of the defendant/s are expressly reserved. 

Applicant: Hal Mann Vella Limited (C 28088), The Factory, Mosta Road, Ħal Lija

Services: Annabelle Bastjana Debono (ID 339990M), 189, ZEN, Xatt ta’ Santa Marija, Mellieħa

Maxime Altare (ID 77803A), 189, ZEN, Xatt ta’ Santa Marija, Mellieħa

The Sworn Application in the names Hal Mann Vella Limited (C 28088) vs Annabelle Bastjana Debono (ID 339990M) et was deferred for hearing to the 24th day of September, 2018 at 9.00 a.m. 

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the First Hall of the Civil Court, entered on the 6th day of June, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Transport Malta Authority vs Kirton & Co Limited (C 180), Sworn Application number 491/2018 MH, it was ordered that service upon Kirton & Co Limited (C 180) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Transport Malta Authority vs Kirton & Co Limited (C 180) on the 17th day of May, 2018, Transport Malta Authority asked this Honourable Court, to allow its demands without proceeding to trial in terms of Articles 167 through 170 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and: 

1. Pronounce that the defendant Kirton & Co Limited is a debtor of the applicant Authority in the sum of €23,215.81, or a more precise sum, consisting in, but not necessarily limited to, port dues … omissis …, and

2. Order the defendant Kirton & Co Limited to pay to the applicant Authority the above indicated amount of €23,215.81, or a more precise amount.

With court costs and interest as demanded against the defendant as of now summoned so that a reference to its oath be made. 

Applicant: Transport Malta Authority, Malta Transport Centre, Triq Pantar, Ħal Lija

Services: Kirton & Co Limited (C 180)

(1) Europa Centre, Floriana

(2) c/o Nicholas Grech, Flt 8, Paradiso Court, N. P. Tabone Street, Tas-Sliema

The Sworn Application in the names Transport Malta Authority vs Kirton & Co Limited (C 180) et was deferred for hearing to the 5th day of November, 2018, at 9.00 a.m. 

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the First Hall of the Civil Court, entered on the 2nd day of July, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Noel Zahra (ID 538973M) noe vs Joseph Orlando (ID 281775M), Sworn Application 362/18 LM, it was ordered that service upon Joseph Orlando (ID 281775M) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the names Noel Zahra (ID 538973M) noe vs Joseph Orlando (ID 281775M) on the 18th day of April, 2018, the applicant Noel Zahra (ID 538973M) noe asked this Hounourable Court to:

1. Declare that the accident object of this sworn application occurred solely due to the fault of the defendant and this because of his negligent conduct, neglect/carelessness, lack of skill and/or nonobservance of the traffic regulations on the part of the said defendant;

2. Consequently liquidate all the damages suffered by the plaintiff, including both damnum emergens and lucrum cessans, if need be with the appointment of court experts, and

3. Order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff all the damages so liquidated.

With court costs

Applicant: Noel Zahra (ID 538973M) noe, Santa Rita, 48, Triq Beland, Żejtun 

Services: Joseph Orlando (ID 281775M), The Podium, M10, Triq San Mark, San Ġiljan

The Sworn Application in the names Noel Zahra (ID 538973M) noe vs Joseph Orlando (ID 281775M) was deferred for hearing to the 17th day of September, 2018, at 9.00 a.m.

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), entered on the 23rd day of March, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Saviour Seychell et, Sworn Application 986/2010 JA, it was ordered that service upon St Peter’s Development Limited (C 4705) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Saviour Seychell et on the 12th day of February, 2018, Mary Seychell (ID 1037846M) respectfully submitted:

That the applicant Bank filed a sworn reply on the 29th day of September, 2010, wherein it claimed as given in the abovementioned Application of Appeal; 

That the respondent Saviour Seychell replied to the request of the Bank in the manner indicated in the said Application of Appeal; 

That the respondent Saviour Seychell filed a counterclaim wherein he claimed as given in the above-mentioned Application of Appeal;

That the defendant Vincent Seychell replied in the manner quoted in the said Application of Appeal;

That eventually, upon the request of the applicant Bank, the company ‘St Peter’s Development Limited’ (C 4705) joined the lawsuit and replied in the manner given in the abovementioned Application of Appeal;

That the facts giving rise to this lawsuit are summarised in the said Application of Appeal;

That the Honourable Court … omissis … pronounced judgement on the 24th day of January, 2018, whereas … omissis … it rejected the pleas of the defendants and upheld all the claims of the plaintiff. The court also dismissed the counterclaim … omissis …;

That the applicant felt aggrieved by the said judgement and is humbly filing an appeal therefrom;

That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist of the following: (1) That the first grievance relates to the consideration of the facts as held by the Honourable Court of First Instance. The applicant deems that in view of the plea of acquisitive prescription in terms of article 2143 the burden of his proof was to bring sufficient evidence to show that the respondent, Saviour Seychell, possessed the land in question for a period of thirty years … omissis … That therefore the witnesses summoned by Saviour Seychell are far from sufficient to prove the acquisition of the property by the acquisitive prescription of thirty years … omissis …, and (2) That the second grievance is the Court’s application of the relevant law. The applicant is pleading the adverse possession through acquisitive prescription which under Maltese law is thirty years, different from Italian law … omissis … That it is being respectfully submitted that as stated in the said Application of Appeal, the respondent/s adduced sufficient evidence to move the court to hold that the elements of adverse possession were met in accordance with the law, despite the legal title that the applicant company may hold. Otherwise the institute of ‘usucapione’ loses its efficacy and social purpose;

 … omissis …

For the above-given reasons the applicant, whilst respectfully filing an appeal against the judgement entered by the Honourable Court of First Instance on the 24th day of January, 2018, in the above-cited names, and reserves to in support of the same adduce further evidence in accordance with the law, respectfully asks this Honourable Court of Appeal to vary the judgement under review by upholding the pleas of the appellant and rejecting the claims of the applicant company and vary the head of costs by ordering the applicant company to pay the court costs of the respondents Seychell. 

With court costs

Appellant: Mary Seychell (ID 1037846M)

Services: St Peter’s Development Limited (C 4705), St Paul’s House, St Patrick Street, Birżebbuġa

HSBC (C 3177), 32, Triq il-Merkanti, Valletta

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), entered on the 4th day of July, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Nazzareno sive Ronnie Zammit (ID 523350M) vs Raymond Mifsud (ID 201965M) et, Sworn Application 47/2012 JA, it was ordered that service upon Nazzareno sive Ronnie Zammit (ID 523350M) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), in the names Nazzareno sive Ronnie Zammit (ID 523350M) vs Raymond Mifsud (ID 201965M) et on the 14th day of May, 2018, Raymond Mifsud (ID 201965M) respectfully submitted:

That the plaintiff Nazzareno sive Ronnie Zammit claimed as reproduced in the abovementioned Application of Appeal;

That the defendants in their sworn reply pleaded as quoted in the said Application of Appeal;

That by a judgement entered on the 25th day of April, 2018, the Civil Court, First Hall nonsuited the defendant Yvonne Mifsud, rejected all the other pleas of the defendants and upheld the claims of the plaintiff in toto, with court costs against the defendant;

 … omissis …

That the applicant felt aggrieved by the above-given decision and thus is humbly filing an appeal therefrom before this Honourable Court. The grievances of the applicant are clear and manifest and consist in the fact that the Court of First Instance made mistakes of law and fact as will be explained hereunder; 

That the evidence and facts of the case are summarised in the said Application of Appeal; 

That the said Application of Appeal then deals with the plea on arbitration. The Court of First Instance rejected the plea on arbitration on the ground, according to the same Court, that this plea was not raised in an earlier cause and he/she who does not cooperate cannot plead that the action is untimely! About the first reason … omissis … In any case, if in the previous proceedings the applicant chose not to exercise any right he had, this does not mean that he thereby waived any right … omissis … The First Court also stated that the applicant failed to cooperate to make arbitration. With due respect, there is no evidence of this in the records of the cause, and in any case, is not the truth. The applicant never refused or otherwise failed to cooperate to make arbitration as per the agreement between the parties … omissis …;

That the abovementioned Application of Appeal also deals with the prescription. The First Court disposed of the plea of prescription by accepting the reasoning of the plaintiff that the prescription was waived … omissis … The applicant assures the Court that he have had no discussions to pay and he never agreed that he had any dues as requested … omissis … To that effect the First Court erred in the facts and conclusions drawn from those facts … omissis …;

That the abovementioned Application of Appeal also lists other considerations … omissis …;

Therefore, for all these reasons and those resulting at the hearing of this appeal, the applicant, while making reference to the evidence already submitted and while reserving to make observations and to exhibit further evidence permissible by law, respectfully asks this Honourable Court to reform the judgement entered by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 25th day of April, 2018 in the above-cited names by confirming the part wherein it nonsuited the defendant Yvonne Mifsud, and revoking the rest of the judgement by upholding the pleas of the appellant and consequently rejecting the claims of the plaintiff/appellee. With the costs of both instances against the said appellee. 

Appellant: Raymond Mifsud (ID 201965M), 30, Triq Lorenzo Gafà, Ħaż-Żebbuġ

Services: Nazzareno sive Ronnie Zammit (ID 523350M), 97, Triq Spinola, San Ġiljan

Yvonne Mifsud (ID 225068M), 30, Triq Lorenzo Gafà, Ħaż-Żebbuġ

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice is hereby given that by a decree of the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), entered on the 3rd day of April, 2018, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names The Performing Right Society Ltd vs One Productions Ltd (C 12946), Sworn Application 45/2012 MCH, it was ordered that service upon The Performing Right Society Ltd (locally represented by Dingli Co. International Limited) be made by this publication as provided in Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), in the names The Performing Right Society Ltd vs One Productions Ltd (C 12946) on the 6th day of March, 2018, One Productions Ltd (C 12946) respectfully submitted:

That the plaintiff company by means of its sworn application dated the 16th day of January, 2012, claimed as given in the abovementioned Application of Appeal; 

That the defendant company, today the appellant, replied as given in the said Application of Appeal; 

That by a judgement entered on the 27th day of May, 2015, the Court of Appeal confirmed the partial judgement of the Civil Court, First Hall dated the 5th day of June, 2014, wherein it was held that the claims of the plaintiff company were time-barred except for the period after the 16th day of January, 2010;

That by a judgement entered on the 14th day of February, 2018, the Civil Court, First Hall disposed of the cause in the manner described in the aforementioned Application of Appeal;

That the appellant felt aggrieved by the judgement of the Civil Court, First Hall dated the 14th day of February, 2018, and is therefore humbly filing this appeal therefrom asking for its reform;

That by the present appeal the appellant is seeking a confirmation of the judgement dated the 14th day of February, 2018, insofar it rejected claims number two, three, four, five and six, and a cancellation and revocation insofar it upheld the first claim of the plaintiff company and consequently ordered the appellant to pay to the plaintiff company the sum of €108,196 and insofar it ordered the appellant company to bear the costs of the cause;

That the grievances of the appellant company are clear and manifest and are as follows: 

1) Rights and actual damages have not been proven according to law. That summarily the appellee based its action on damages ex contractu which it claims result from alleged infringements of copyright on the part of the appellant;

 … omissis …

That it appears that the appellee is basing its claim on a tariff that was approved by the Board of Copyright on the 15th day of February, 2007, and was subsequently published in accordance with the law in the Government Gazette of the 2nd day of May, 2007;

 … omissis …

That with due respect, an examination of the evidence submitted by the appellee fails to show that the damages being claimed were in fact actual;

 … omissis …

That the damages sought by the appellee can never result from the evidence. The appellee was complacent and left too many holes which cannot be addressed, except with the application of a draconian tariff which disregards all the evidence without any justification;

That put simply and in conclusion, theoretically and using the reasoning of the Court of First Instance, a broadcaster who does not broadcast one second of material belonging to the appellee, would still be required to pay 2% of its income! The appellant opines that this is unreasonable, discriminatory and illegal and certainly should not find the comfort of our Courts;

(2) The head of costs. That the appellant submits that once the Court of First Instance rejected a number of claims of the plaintiff company and furthermore drastically reduced the amount that was being sought by the said plaintiff company, the bearing of court costs should reflect these circumstances; 

Therefore, the appellant while referring to the evidence exhibited and reserving to submit further evidence permitted by law at this stage, respectfully asks this Honourable Court of Appeal to reform the judgement entered by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 14th day of February, 2018, by confirming it insofar it rejected claims number two, three, four, five and six, and canceling and revoking it insofar it upheld the first claim of the plaintiff company and consequently ordered the appellant to pay to the plaintiff company the sum of €108,196 and insofar it ordered the appellant company to bear the costs of the cause. 

Appellant: One Productions Ltd (C 12946), A28B, Industrial Estate, Marsa

Services: The Performing Right Society Ltd, Suite 3, Parklane Business Centre, Triq Mountbatten, Ħamrun

ADV. DR FRANK-LUKE M. ATTARD CAMILLERI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

DKR 81/2004 – Variation of Freezing Order

It is being notified that by a decree dated 1st August, 2018, given by the Criminal Court (Mr. Justice Giovanni M. Grixti) after an application filed by Graziella Attard on the 9th July, 2018 (Bill of Indictment number 10/2007) in the case:

Republic of Malta

versus

Graziella Attard, 23 years, daughter of Lawrence and Maria née Mallia, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 23rd August, 1981, residing at number 62, ‘Marzu’, Triq il-Kampanella, Fgura, Malta, and holder of identity card bearing number 484981M; and

… omissis …

The Court Authorised that the sum of €60,995.62 deposited at the Law Courts by Schedule of Deposit numbered 2068/16 be released by the Registrar of Courts in favour of Graziella Attard.

DR JOHN SEYCHELL NAVARRO

Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals (Malta)

DKR 115/2018 – New Freezing Order

It is being notified that by a decree dated 10th of August, 2018, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature  (Magistrate Dr Claire Stafrace Zammit, LLD), 

The Police

(Inspector John Spiteri)

(Inspector Roxanne Tabone)

(Inspector Joanna Piscopo)

versus

Fayton Falzon, 30 years, son of Francis and Paola neé Scerri, born in Pietà, Malta on the 6th of May, 1988, residing at Doris, Flat number 3, Triq il-Mimosa, Tal-Pietà, Malta, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 242688M;

Ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to Fayton Falzon and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Article 5 of Cap. 373 of the Money Laundering Act of the Laws of Malta, of section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court Authorized the accused Fayton Falzon to receive the amount authorized by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) on an annual basis provided that every financial entity is ordered to present a note by which it informs the Court in which account or from which account these monies are taken or the accused themselves may indicate to the Court from which account they are perceiving the money indicated.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. 

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

DR JOHN SEYCHELL NAVARRO 

DIP. HLTH SCIENCE, DIP. MGMT STUD., DIP. NOT. PUB., LLB, LLD

Assistant Registrar, Criminal Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 7th day of August, 2018, and this after a written plea numbered 135/18, Ordered:

The correction of the Act of Death of Salvatrice Cullara, bearing number 972 of the year 2018, in the column entitled ‘Particulars respecting the deceased – name and surname’, the surname of the deceased should read Cullura’ instead of Cullara;

And in the column entitled ‘Name and surname of parents, and whether living or dead’, the surname Cullara is to be cancelled and substituted with the surname Cullura’, and the incorrect surname Recope is to be cancelled and substituted with the correct surname Ricupero.

JANET CALLEJA

F/Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

Notice, Registry of the Civil Court (Family Section)

Whereas the plaintiff Clare Borg (I.D. 376997M) filed an application under oath (No. 173/18 AL) demanding Corrections of the Act of Birth of the minor Shakira Al Dabbous number 3175/2004 in the Public Registry. 

Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette. 

Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case. 

By order of the Court

RITA MANGION

For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals