Smt Jayamma vs Sri Muniraju
2023 Latest Caselaw 5658 Kant

                                      -1-
                                                  NC: 2023:KHC:28982
                                                RFA No. 1349 of 2008




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                   BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
               REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2008 (INJ)
            BETWEEN:

            SMT. JAYAMMA,
            W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
            AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
            R/O NO.186,
            KACHAKARANAHALLI,
            THOMAS TOWN POST,
            BANGALORE - 84.
                                                        ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. N. HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            SRI. MUNIRAJU,
            S/O. KAKAPPA,
            AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
            R/O NO.185,
            KACHARAKANAHALLI,
Digitally   THOMAS TOWN POST,
signed by
MALATESH    BANGALORE - 84.
KC
                                                       ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH        (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE AND
COURT OF        SRI. DINESHA. A. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)
KARNATAKA
                 THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
            JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2008 PASSED IN
            OS.NO. 8066/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL
            JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY
            INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,

                THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
            COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:28982
                                           RFA No. 1349 of 2008




                           JUDGMENT

Mr.N.Hariprasad, learned counsel for the appellant is

present.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

despite best efforts, the appellant has not cooperated and not

instructed him to prosecute the case.

3. Accordingly, he pleads his helplessness in

prosecuting the matter.

4. The aforesaid submissions is placed on record.

The appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS

CT: AVB