Smt Rachi Puttamma vs Smt Sannamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5042 Kant

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

                    HRRP.No.16/2017
BETWEEN:

SMT. RACHI PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SHRI GOVINDAIAH
AGE 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 1975/L
NEW NO. 61/2, ASHOKAPURAM
MYSURU - 570 002.                         ... PETITIONER

(PARTY-IN-PERSON ABSENT)

AND:

1.     SMT SANNAMMA
       D/O LATE D PUTTASWAMY
       AGE 62 YEARS
       R/T NO 1960 (DOOR NO 1972)
       NEW NO A 32/1 11TH CROSS,
       ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE - 570001

2.     SMT SAROJA
       W/O SRI MAHADEVAIAH
       D/O SRI GOVNDAIAH
       AGE 47 YEARS
       R/AT NO 30, SWEEPER COLONY
       VIDYARANYAPURAM
       MYSURU - 570008

3.     SRI DINESHA
       S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH
       AGE 42 YEARS

4.     SRI SRINIVASA
       S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH
       AGE 42 YEARS
5.     SRI PRAKASHA
       S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH
       AGE 38 YEARS
                                 2
        RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT
        NO. 1975/L (NEW NO 61/2)
        ASHOKAPURAM MYSORE - 570001.            ... RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021;
 PETITION AGAINST R2 STANDS DISMISSED V/O DTD 20.09.2021;
 V/O DTD: 05.06.2017, DEATH OF R4 & R5 HAVING NOT ABATED
ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR LR'S BEING ALREADY ON RECORD)

      THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA
RENT ACT 1999, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
14.12.2016 PASSED IN R.R.NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED: 28.09.2015 PASSED IN HRC NO.1/13 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 27(2)(a) OR SEC.31(A) OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999 AND ETC.,

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

                           ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo to

retire from the case. This Court in terms of the order dated

25.10.2021 had permitted him to retire and the petitioner

name was ordered to be shown in the cause-list.

2. There is no representation for the petitioner.

3. Hence, this petition is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/NM