Sri. Nakoda Enterprises vs M/S Kush Entertainers
2022 Latest Caselaw 2478 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

           R.F.A. NO.1004 OF 2009 (P-INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NAKODA ENTERPRISES
NO.77/78, BATVIA CHAMBERS
1ST FLOOR, S.P.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 002

BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. MAHENDRA B. GANDHI
S/O BHERULAL GANDHI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.A. GOPI PRAKASH, ADV. [ABSENT])

AND:

1.     M/S KUSH ENTERTAINERS
       NO.8, RAMAIYENGAR ROAD
       V.V.PURAM, BANGALORE - 04
                                           SINCE RESPONDENT NO.1
       REP. BY ITS PARTNER                 IS A MAJOR NOW HIS
       SRI.KUSH BHOOPALAM                  NATURAL GUARDIAN NOT
       S/O B.V.BADARINATH                  REQUIRED TO REPRESENT
                                           KUSH   BHOOPALAM   IN
       AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS                 CAUSE TITLE.

       SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS
       NATURAL GUARDIAN
       SRI. B.V.BADRINATH
                                2



      S/O LATE VISHVANATH SHETTY
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2.    M/S GANESH VIDEO
      NO.121, NKK COMPLEX
      S.P.ROAD, BANGALORE - 02

      BY ITS PARTNERS
      SRI. RATHAN ROY AND
      SRI. DEEPAK ROY                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
    R1 SERVED)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER XLI RULE 1(1) READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 09.09.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4843/2005
ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.

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

                        JUDGMENT

None appears for the appellant.

The appeal is of the year 2009. It is noticed that

even on previous occasion, the appellant has been absent.

It appears that the appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-