Shri. S. Anandasetty vs Shri. Mehaboobsharif
2022 Latest Caselaw 8866 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH

             REVIEW PETITION NO.437/2019
                            IN
                    R.F.A.NO.987/2011


BETWEEN:

SHRI. S. ANANDASETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.27, CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 038.                          ... PETITIONER

        (BY SRI. P. NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:

1.     SHRI. MEHABOOBSHARIF
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       BIN HOYATHSERIEF
       NO.747/767, H. RANAMATH MANZIL
       POTTUMEDU, HILAL STREET
       BENGALURU-560 005.

2.     SHRI. R. RAVI
       (SINCE, DECEASED BY LEGAL HEIRS)

       2(a) SMT. RAVI MALATHI
            AGED MAJOR IN AGE
            W/O. LATE. RAVI

       2(b) SHRI. CHANDRASEKHAR
            AGED MAJOR IN AGE
            S/O. LATE. R. RAVI
                                 2


     2(c) MS. JAYAPRADHA
          AGED MAJOR IN AGE,
          D/O. LATE. R. RAVI,

           PETITIONERS 2(a) TO 2(c) ARE
           R/O.NO.A-41, SECTION-4,
           HMT QUARTERS, JALAHALLI,
           BENGALURU -560 013.

3.   THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT
     AUTHORITY
     KUMARA PARK WEST
     T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
     PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
     BENGALURU-560 020.

     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
     THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT
     AUTHORITY, KUMAR PARK WEST
     T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
     PALACE GUTTAHALLI
     BENGALURU-560 020.                       ... RESPONDENTS


      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.07.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN APPEAL BEARING
R.F.A.NO.987/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This Court, vide order dated 21.04.2022 directed the

learned counsel for the petitioner to comply with the office

objections within one week, on payment of cost of Rs.500/- and

neither cost is paid nor office objections are complied with. The

matter is listed fourth time for non-compliance of office

objections. Hence, it is clear that the learned counsel for the

petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter.

2. Today also, though the matter is called twice in the

morning as well as in the afternoon, no representation on behalf

of the petitioner.

3. Hence, the review petition is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST