M/S Classic Costruction Company vs Mrs Raj Aggarwal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3364 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

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

             R.F.A. NO.215 OF 2007 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.     M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
       A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
       HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
       NO.10 AND 10/1
       RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
       BANGALORE 560 025

2.     SRI SHYAMLAL AGGARWAL
       S/O LATE K.R.AGGARWAL
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       PARTNER M/S CLASSIC
       CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
       NO.10 10/1 RAJARAM MOHAN
       ROY ROAD BANGALORE 560 025

                                      ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.V. RANGARAMU ASSTS.,
    SRI. K. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. [ABSENT])

AND:

1.     MRS RAJ AGGARWAL
       W/O MR SATHISH KUMAR
       AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       R/AT NO.5, 3RD FLOOR
       AISHWARYA APARTMENTS
                          2



     REST HOUSE ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

     NOW AT NO.S-1
     HARMONY APARTMENTS
     ANDREW ROAD
     SHANTHINAGAR
     BANGALORE - 560 027

2.   MR BHAGWAN RAO D PATEL
     S/O SRI DIGAMBARA RAO PATEL
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     R/AT NO.127-D 35TH A CROSS
     16TH CROSS JAYANAGAR
     4TH T BLOCK BANGALORE 560 041

3.   SMT LEELAVATHI BHAT
     W/O DR P VITTAL BHAT
     AGED ABOUT 58 YRS
     R/AT NO.2266
     9TH MAIN BANASHANKARI
     SEEMAL STAGE
     BANGALORE 560 070                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2006 PASSED
IN OS.NO.3628/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                              3



                       JUDGMENT

None appears for the appellants.

On last three occasions also the appellants have

remained unrepresented. It appears that appellants are

not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly,

appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-