Sri Lakshmanadasappa @ ... vs Sri L Muniyellappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 11782 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2016

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

         REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.146 OF 2014

BETWEEN:


SRI LAKSHMANADASAPPA @ NARASIMHAIAH
SON OF LATE LINGAPPA @ ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2, KEMPANNA GARDEN
P.S.K.NAIDU ROAD
COX TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 005.                      ...APPELLANT


(BY SRI JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)


AND:


SRI L.MUNIYELLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1.     SMT.MUTHAMMA
       WIFE OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2.     SRI SRINIVASA
       SON OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

3.     KUM.VEDAVATHI
       DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
                              -2-


4.    KUM. SUMITHRA @ SUMI
      DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.16, HARIBABU BUILDING
1ST CROSS, 6TH MAIN
VINAYAKANAGAR
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE.                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE)


      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER      41 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED: 25.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S. NO.8049/2003 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,     BANGALORE,       DISMISSING     THE     SUIT    FOR
DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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


                       JUDGMENT

This Court, by peremptory dated 28.04.2016 extended time

till 30.04.2016 to comply with the office objections, subject to

payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable to the 'library fund of

Advocates association, Bengaluru'. The appellant neither paid

the costs nor complied with the office objections, even after a

lapse of two months. This would indicate that the appellant is

not evincing interest in prosecuting the matter. The peremptory

order dated 28.04.2016 stood operating as on this day. Hence, no

further order required in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal shall stands dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VR