Dr Prasanna B R vs Sri Ashwatharame Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.528 OF 2017


BETWEEN:


1. Dr. Prasanna B.R.,
Aged about 42 years
S/o R. Basavaraja,

2. Dr. Medha Prasanna
Aged about 37 years,
W/o Dr. Prasanna B.R.,

Both are r/at No.58, 10th Main,
2nd Stage, Binni Layout, Vijayanagara
Bangalore - 40,

Represented by their Power of Attorney
Holder Smt. Siddalingambike,
Aged about 62 years,
W/o Basavaraja,
R/at No.58, 10th Main,
2nd Stage, Binni Layout, Vijayanagara
Bengaluru - 40.

                                         .. APPELLANTS

(By Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, Advocate)
                                             RFA 528/2017
                             2


AND:

1. Sri Ashwatharame Gowda
Aged about 71 years,
S/o late Venaktaramanappa,

2. Sri Manjunatha,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o late Venkataramanappa,

Both are R/at Muddaiahnapalya Village,
Gidadakonenahalli Dakhale
Vishwaneedam Post
Yeshwanthapura Hobli
Bengaluru North Taluk - 560 091.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS


(By Sri M.K. Bhaskaraiah, Advocate for C/R1 & R2)


      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER
XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2017,
PASSED IN O.S.NO.8089/2010, BY XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE (CCH NO.30) AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY
DECREE THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellants is appearing through video conference and submits that considering the RFA 528/2017 3 memo for withdrawal filed by them, the appeal be dismissed as not pressed.

Perused the memo filed by the appellants on 27.06.2019 wherein they have stated that the parties to the appeal have settled the matter amicably and as such, the appellants would not press the present appeal.

In view of the memo and supporting submission, the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*