M Krishnoji Rao vs Smt J Parvathi Bai

                               -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

          REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 110/2012

BETWEEN:

M. KRISHNOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYOJI RAO
RESIDENT OF A PORTION OF
NO.59/1, I FLOOR, V CROSS
K.P.AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023                      ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.KRISHNOJI RAO - ABSENT)

AND:

1.     SMT. J.PARVATHI BAI
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
       W/O. LATE M.MANNAJI RAO

2.     SMT. M. ASHA BAI
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
       W/O. SRI. GOPAL RAO

3.     SMT. M. USHA BAI
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
       W/O. SRI. YESHWANTH RAO

4.     SMT. M. KASTURI BAI
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
       W/O. SRI. PRAKASH RAO
                               -2-



5.     MISS. M.SOWMYA BAI
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       D/O. LATE M. MANNAJI RAO

6.     MISS. M. SUNITHA BAI
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
       D/O. LATE M. MANNAJI RAO

7.     MISS. M. HEMA MALINI
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
       D/O. LATE M. MANNAJI RAO

       ALL RESIDENTS OF
       NO.59/1, V CROSS
       K P AGRAHARA
       MAGADI TALUK
       BENGALURU-560 023                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T.N.ARAKESHWARA , ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 14.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.7508/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE XII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON                FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED                   THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Perused this Court's order dated 04.07.2019 wherein, it is recorded that the appellant has taken back the papers from the learned counsel on record under acknowledgement. The Registry is also directed to issue -3- emergent notice to the appellant. The emergent notice is returned with the shara that it is ascertained from the appellant's neighbor - Smt. Sunitha that the appellant has vacated the premises without leaving behind his forwarding address.

If the appellant has taken back the file under acknowledgment, should have engaged another counsel to represent his cause. But, the appellant has not made any alternative arrangement, and this bespeaks of lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for default.

SD/-

JUDGE RB -4- BMSPJ:

04.01.2021 ORDER IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 110/2012 RB