Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sri. Nagegowda vs Sri. Raju
2021 Latest Caselaw 1479 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1479 Kant
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagegowda vs Sri. Raju on 28 January, 2021
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         BEFORE

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

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 441/2016

BETWEEN :

SRI. NAGEGOWDA
D/O. SINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O. KUNTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TALUKA,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101.
                                    ... PETITIONER
(By SRI. K PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND :

1.      SRI. RAJU
        S/O. CHIKKANNA,
        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
        R/O. KUNTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
        BANNUR HOBLI,
        T. NARASIPURA TALUKA,
        MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101.

2.      THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
        MALEYUR VILLAGE,
        BANNUR HOBLI,
        T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
        MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101.
        REP. BY P.D.O.,
                               2



3.   SRI. SRINIVASA., PDO
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
     MALEYUR VILLAGE,
     BANNUR HOBLI,
     T. NARASIPURA TALUKA,
     MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101.

                                          ... RESPONDENTS


      THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.08.2016 PASSED IN MA NO. 7/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., T.
NARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
AND AFFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED
ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO. 161/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., T. NARSIPURA, REJECTING IA
NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC., FOR
TEMPORARY INJUCTION.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

Perused the order dated 03.11.2020 and

04.12.2020. There was no representation on behalf of

the petitioner, and in fact there has been continuous

absence even prior to the aforesaid dates. None appears

even today. It is obvious that the concerned is not

interested in prosecuting the petition. Therefore, the

petition is dismissed for default.

SD/-

JUDGE

nv

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter