Sri Chikkanna vs Karnataka Badminton Association
2022 Latest Caselaw 10632 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

         R. F. A. NO.254 OF 2007 (INJ)

BETWEEN:
1.  SRI CHIKKANNA
    S/O KENCHANNA
    OLD NO.5, LATER NO.19
    NEW NO.28, BILEKAHALLI (BLACKPALLI) VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ
    PRESENT CORPORATION NO.4,
    MILLER TANK, VASANTHANAGAR
    BANGALORE - 560 052.

2.   SRI C K GANESH
     S/O SRI CHIKKANNA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

3.   SRI C K NAGARAJ
     S/O SRI CHIKKANNA
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

4.   SMT RAJAMMA
     D/O CHIKKANNA
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

     APPELLANTS 2 AND 4 ARE REP. BY THIER
     POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
     SRI.C.K. NAGARAJ, THE THIRD APPELLANT
     ABOVENAMED.
     APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE ALL
                          2




     R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
     CHIKKASANDRA POST
     NOW MADIVALA POST, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
     BANGALORE - 560 068.
                                      ...APPELLANTS
[BY SMT. V VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VISHUKUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]

AND:
1.   KARNATAKA BADMINTON ASSOCIATION
     REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SRINIVASAN
     NO.85/1, 6TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
     BANGALORE-560 055.

2.   SRI. M RANJIT
     HON. SECRETARY
     KARNATAKA BADMINTON ASSOCIATION
     C/O MOHAN AND CO., P B NO.5136, NO.105,
     KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

3.   CORPORATION OF THE CITY
     OF BANGALORE NOW CALLED
     THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-2
     REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                                 ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. A.L. PRASHANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
    SRI. N. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. ARAVIND M. NAGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST    THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.08.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.1559/1991 ON THE FILE OF
THE   VII   ADDL.CITY  CIVIL  JUDGE,   BANGALORE,
CCH.NO.19, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
                              3




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 31.1.2007 and matter

was listed before the Court on 29.6.2007. At request

of learned counsel for the appellant, matter was

adjourned. Appeal was listed on 12.7.2207; none

appeared for the appellant and was ordered to list

next week. Matter was listed on 13.8.2007 and this

Court issued emergent notice to the respondents and

ordered to list on 23.8.2007. On 23.8.2007, at

request of learned counsel for respondent No.3,

matter was adjourned. On 23.3.2009, appeal came to

be admitted and directed to secure the records.

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 16.3.2021

and as counsels on both sides were absent,

adjourned. Thereafter, matter was listed on

30.3.2021, 17.3.2022, 30.3.2022 and 4.7.2002. On

all the dates, there was no representation for the

appellants. This shows that the appellants are not

interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.s

1/2022 and 1/2007 do not survive for consideration

and are accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

rs