M J Vadivel vs P Kantilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 429 Kant

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

               M.F.A.NO.1757 OF 2017(CPC)

BETWEEN

M J VADIVEL
S/O JAMBULINGAM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
HAVING BUSINESS AT VEL MARK MARKET, NO.117
SUBRAMANIA PILLAI STREET
SALEM TOWN SOUTH
TAMILNADU-636 001.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

P KANTILAL
S/O PUCKRAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
TRADING AS PREETHI APPLIANCES
NO.33/34, MUTHACHARI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NAYANADHALLI, BENGALURU-560039
REPTD, BY HIS BROTHER AND GPA HOLDER
RAMESH KUMAR,S/O PUKRAJ
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE )

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 20.01.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 & 2
IN O.S.NO. 341/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A.NO. 1 & 2 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2




                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo

dated 07.12.2020, which reads as under:

"The undersigned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the aforementioned matter as not pressed, as the appellant herein had filed the above appeal challenging the order passed on IA No.1 in OS.341/2016 on the file of Hon'ble XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-10) and subsequently the suit got dismissed for non-prosecution on 06.12.2019 and automatically the stay granted by the Hon'ble trial Court also does not survive for consideration under such circumstances the appeal herein becomes infructuous. Hence, the same may be disposed of as not pressed in the interest of justice and equity."

2. In view of the aforesaid memo, the appeal is

dismissed as not pressed.

In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for

consideration and accordingly disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bmc