M Palani vs M Murugesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 647 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

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

            R.F.A. NO.526 OF 2008 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

M. PALANI
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O MURUGESH
R/O NO.55, II CROSS
VITTAL NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 018                   ... APPELLANT

(BY MS. BHAGEERATHI L., ADV. AND
    SRI.MAHESHWARA PRASAD, ADV. [ABSENT])

AND:

1.     M.MURUGESH
       MAJOR
       S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
       SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1(a) SRI. M. JAYARAM
     S/O LATE M. MURUGESH
     MAJOR

1(b) SMT. MOHANA
     W/O ASHOK
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

1(c) SMT. SUSHEELA
                           2



     W/O DAMODAR
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

1(d) SMT. PUSHPA
     D/O LATE M.MURUGESH
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

1(e) SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI
     W/O B.G.VASANTHAKUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
     LR NO.1(a) IS THE SON OF
     LR'S NO.1(b) - 1(e) ARE
     THE DAUGHTERS OF LATE M.MURUGESH
     LR NO.1(a) - (e) ARE R/AT
     NO.218/1, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS
     CHAMRAJPET, BENGALORE 560 018.

2.   SMT. JAGADAMBA
     MAJOR, W/O M. MURUGESH

3.   B.V.GOPAL
     MAJOR, S/O M. MURUGESH
     SL. NO. 2 AND 3 ARE R/O
     No.218/1, 1ST MAIN, II CROSS
     CHAMARAJPET
     BANGALORE - 560 018

4.   PADMANABHAIAH
     MAJOR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO
     APPELLANT, R/O 153, III MAIN
     CHAMARAJPET
     BANGALORE - 560 018            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. T. S. RAJARAJESHWARI, ADV. FOR
    R1 (a), (b) AND (e) AND R2 AND R3;
    VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2010
    NOTICE TO R1 (c) & (d) IS HELD
    SUFFICIENT; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                 3



     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2008 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.2176/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.

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

                         JUDGMENT

The matter is of the year 2008. It is noticed that

inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, learned counsel

for the appellant has remained absent on several

occasions.

Even today, learned counsel for the appellant is

absent. It appears that the appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the case. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-