Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10926 Kant
Judgement Date : 18 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46302
RFA No. 965 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 965 OF 2009 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI AKBAR BURHAN
S/O AHAMED BURHAN
AGED 65 YEARS
R/A NO.17, 1ST A CROSS
RAHAMATHNAGAR
R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MASKOOR HASHMI MD, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)
AND:
1. SRI AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
OCC:RETD. KSRTC DRIVER
RESIDING AT NO.110,
R T NAGAR, RAHMATHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 32
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
Digitally
signed by R (CAUSE TITILE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
MANJUNATHA
DATED 08.07.2014)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA A) MS. AZEEMA BI
D/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
W/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT. NO.675, 8TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 032.
B) MRS. NASEEMA BANU
D/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
W/O. GHOUSE KHAN
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46302
RFA No. 965 of 2009
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. NO.612, DODDUPET ROAD
SHARIF MOHALLA
KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
C) MRS. TAHERA BANU
D/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
W/O. ISMAIL SHARIM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT. NO.675, 8TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 032.
D) SRI. NASIR KHAN
S/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. NO.110, 8TH MAIN
R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.
E) SRI. AADIL KHAN
S/O. LATE AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 110, 8TH MAIN
R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.
2. THE PRESIDENT
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF
MASJID-A-ALA, RAHMATHNAGA
R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 32
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MEHTER M AZZAM, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.09.2009 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.17704/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46302
RFA No. 965 of 2009
JUDGMENT
Case called out twice. None present on behalf of the
appellant. Even on the last date of hearing, there was no
representation on behalf of the appellant and this Court in the
interest of justice, adjourned it from 01.12.2023 to today.
2. Appeal is of the year 2009 and the suit of the
plaintiff came to be dismissed. Accordingly, there is no
justification in keeping the appeal pending.
3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!