Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4738 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25451
RFA No. 384 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2018 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. S BALAKRISHNAN
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA MUDALIAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT GEETHA LAKSHMI
W/O SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. R MAHESHKUMAR
S/O RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 3,
2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
Digitally signed
by VEENA BANGALORE - 560027
KUMARI B
Location: High
...APPELLANTS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR K M., AND SRI. C. MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. B VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O BALAKRISHNA
W/O K AYYASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 3,
2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25451
RFA No. 384 of 2018
4TH MAIN,
SAMAPANGIRAMANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560027
2. SMT SHANTHI. B
D/O BALAKRISHNA
W/O JOY V G
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO 33, 3RD CROSS,
6TH MAIN, B PILLAREDDY LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560043
3. NATARAJAN
S/O LATE SUBRAMNAYA MUDALIAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
4. SRI RAVICHANDRAN
S/O BALACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 3,
2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560027
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 1 READ WITH SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 20.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.4937/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25451
RFA No. 384 of 2018
ORDER
None appear either physically or through video
conference.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that
even though the matter was admitted on 18.03.2021 the
appellants having sufficient time to pay the process, till today,
the appellants have not paid the process and not even
appeared either physically or through video conference. Not
even shown any reason for nonappearance.
3. This would clearly go to show that appellants are
not interested in prosecuting the matter, as well in taking the
steps. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-
prosecution as well for not taking steps.
Sd/-
JUDGE
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!