Karnataka High Court
L Jayaram vs P L Nagarathna on 10 January, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
RFA No.612 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. L.JAYARAM
S/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 52 YEARS
2. L.PRAKASH
S/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 50 YEARS
3. L.DAMODAR
S/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 31 YEARS
4. ANKAMMA
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 81 YEARS
[ALL R/AT: OLD No.U-11
NEW NO.2, 3RD CROSS,
6TH BLOCK,
PADARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE -560 026 ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.V.C.RAJU AND SMT.MANASA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. P.L.NAGARATHNA
W/O. K.VARADARAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2
R/AT: OLD NO.U-11
NEW NO.2, 3RD CROSS,
6TH BLOCK,
PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE -560 026
2. SHANTHAMMA
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 42 YEARS
3. GOWRAMMA
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 44 YEARS
4. RADHA
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 37 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4
R/AT: OLD NO.U-11
NEW NO.2, 3RD CROSS,
6TH BLOCK,
PADARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE -560 026
5. MUNIRAJAMMA
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 55 YEARS
R/O. GANAPATHI NAGARA
HOSKEREHALLI ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 026.
6. KUMARI
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O. 7TH CROSS, GANAPATHI NAGAR
BANGALORE -560 026
7. HEMAVATHI
D/O. P.LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY
AGED 38 YEARS
R/AT: NO.19, 11TH B CROSS
3
HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE -560026 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHANA N., FOR
SMT. T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATES FOR R-1,
R-2 TO 7 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2011
PASSED IN O.S.NO.2767/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-14,
BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT WITH COST AND
PARTLY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In view of the notification dated 04.01.2022,
keeping in view the rising number of cases of Omicron
Variant (COVID-19), the hybrid hearing in the Principal
Bench at Bengaluru is suspended for the present, and all
hearings before the Principal Bench at Bengaluru shall be
through Virtual mode with effect from 05.01.2022.
Accordingly, all the parties are present through video
conferencing.
2. Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel
for appellants is present through VC and stated that
appellants - 1 to 3 are also present through VC from his
Chambers and appellant No.4 is aged and because of ill-
health she has not appeared and learned counsel for
appellants represents her. Respondent No.1 -
P.L.Nagarathna is also present along with them and she
is identified by her counsel Sri. Madhusudhana N.,
appearing on behalf of Smt. T.R.Rajeshwari through VC
in the Chambers of Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, learned Senior
Counsel.
3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the
appellants are defendants - 1 to 3 & 10 and respondents
- 1 is the plaintiff and they have settled the matter
amicably. Therefore, the parties are not interested in
continuing the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that
respondent No.1 who was the plaintiff before the court
has filed a memo on 07.01.2022 to dismiss and
withdraw the suit filed in O.S.No.2757/1996.
4. Learned counsel also submitted that in view
of the memo filed by respondent No.1, the appellants
are not pressing this appeal and it may be dismissed as
not pressed. Learned counsel also stated that he will file
memo to this effect in the registry today itself and prays
to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
5. It is seen that respondent Nos.2 to 7 though
served are unrepresented.
6. Later the said joint memo signed by
appellants 1 to 3, respondent No.1, learned counsel for
appellants and respondent No.1 is received in the office
on 10.01.2022 and the said joint memo which is taken
on record reads as under:
JOINT MEMO
"1. The disputes between the Parties namely 1st
Respondent/Plaintiff and Appellants/Defendants No.1
to 3 are settled amicably. Hence the Respondent
No.1 has filed Memo dated 07.01.2022 before this
Hon'ble Court to dismiss and withdraw the suit
O.S.No.2767/1996 and to set aside the Judgment
and Decree.
2. This Hon'ble Court having accepted the Memo for
Dismissal of Suit filed by Respondent No.1, the
present appeal does not survive for consideration
and accordingly the Appeal may be dismissed as
having become infructuous.
Wherefore it is prayed that after recording the
Memo dated 07.01.2022 filed by the Respondent
No.1, the Appeal may be dismissed in the interest of
Justice."
7. As the parties are identified by their
respective counsels and in view of the memo filed by
respondent No.1 dated 07.01.2022 and also in view of
the joint memo filed by appellants dated 10.01.2022
accepted by both the parties as stated above, the appeal
does not survives for consideration. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed as not pressed.
The parties to bear their own costs.
In view of the disposal of main appeal, I.A.1/2017
does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN/HJ
