Sri V Raghu vs Smt Pushpa
2023 Latest Caselaw 183 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                            RFA No. 93 of 2018




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2018 (INJ)
               BETWEEN:

               SRI V RAGHU
               AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
               S/O LATE SRI V VENUGOPAL
               R/AT NO. 299, CAMBRIDGE ROAD,
               1ST CROSS ROAD, ULSOOR,
               BENGALURU - 560 008.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT

               (BY SRI. C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               SMT PUSHPA
Digitally      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
signed by      W/O SRI NARAYANA MURTHY
PANKAJA S      D/O LATE SRI K KANNAN & LATE SMT. MEENAKSHI,
Location:      R/AT 25/10/2, 24TH CROSS,
High Court     5TH MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
of Karnataka   K.P.AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD,
               BENGALURU - 560 023.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI. G.SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE)

                      RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF
               CPC. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2017 PASSED
               IN O.S.NO.26252/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
               & SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT
               FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

                    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
               DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                              RFA No. 93 of 2018




                             JUDGMENT

1. Though peremptory order was passed on 26.02.2020, paper

books are yet to be filed.

2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

SD/-

JUDGE

SV