Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9855 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44713
RFA No. 664 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE SRI. CHOWDAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1(A). SMT. NARAYANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.11,
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD,
DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL POST,
BANGALORE - 560 024.
1(B). SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.31/77,
Digitally DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL POST,
signed by KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
SUMITHRA R
BANGALORE - 560 024.
Location:
HIGH COURT 1(C). SRI. N. VEERANNA,
OF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NO.11,
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD,
DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL POST,
BANGALORE - 560 024.
AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2012
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN R.J.S, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. R.J. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE ( ABSENT) )
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44713
RFA No. 664 of 2010
AND:
1. SRI. S. MUNE GOWDA,
S/O SRI. SONNAMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O DASARAHALLI VILLAGE,
H.A.FARM POST, BANGALORE - 560 024.
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O SRI. S. MUNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O DASARAHALLI VILLAGE,
H.A.FARM POST, BANGALORE - 560 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 10.02.2010 PASSED IN
OS.NO.8360/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants called out absent.
2. Sri Nandish Gowda, representing
Sri R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 is present.
NC: 2023:KHC:44713
3. The office has reported that the cost awarded by
this Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 has not been paid.
Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the
appellant. The appellant, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunity to argue the matter has not chosen to argue
the matter has not complied with the order passed by
this Court dated 01.12.2023. The matter is of the year
2010.
4. It appears that the appellant legal representatives
are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SD/-
JUDGE
CH
CT: BHK
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!