Smt Gowramma vs Sri V Rajanna
2023 Latest Caselaw 1910 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                              RFA No. 58 of 2016




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                             REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2016 (INJ)

                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   SMT. GOWRAMMA,
                           W/O. LATE. JAYARAM REDDY,
                           AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                      1(A) SMT. PRABHA. J
                           D/O LATE. JAYARAMA REDDY,
                           W/O. RAJU,
                           AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                           R/AT.NO.E-55, 34,
Digitally signed by
PAVITHRA N                 A.T. STREET GRAMATANA,
Location: High             HOSUR ROAD, NEAR A.T. STREET,
Court Of Karnataka         BOMMANAHALLI,
                           BANGLAROE - 560 068.

                      1(B) SRI. NAGAVENI .J
                           D/O LATE. JAYARAMA REDDY,
                           W/O. RAJU,
                           AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                           R/AT.NO.1496, VEERASHETTIHALLI,
                           NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
                           CHIKKABANAWARA,
                           BANGALROE - 560 090.

                      1(C) SMT. HEMAVATHI .J
                           D/O. LATE. JAYARAMA REDDY,
                           W/O. H. ASHOK,
                           AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                           R/AT. NO.302, DODDATHORUGU,
                           ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560
                           100.

                      2.   B.J. BABU REDDY,
                           S/O. LATE. JAYARAM REDDY,
                           AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                               -2-
                                            RFA No. 58 of 2016




BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.69/8, NEAR BHANU NURSING
HOME ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
M. VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI, WARD NO.175,
BANGALORE - 560 068.

3.     B.M. BABU REDDY,
       S/O. LATE. MUNISWAMY REDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
       R/AT. NEAR BHANU NURSING
       HOME ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
       M. VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD,
       BOMMANAHALLI, WARD NO.175,
       BANGALORE - 560 068.

                                                       ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: CHIDAMBAR REDDY .B.N., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:
SRI. V. RAJANNA,
S/O. LATE. VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.35, 16TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
                                                   ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

       THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2015 PASSED IN
OS.NO.6387/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
COURT    BENGALURU,   DECREEING     THE   SUIT   FOR    PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.



       THIS R.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-
                                               RFA No. 58 of 2016




                            JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellants is absent. No

representation. Learned counsel for the respondent is

present.

2. The suit is one for bare injunction, which was

decreed by the trial Court.

3. The order sheet dated 03.03.2023 reads as

under;

"Learned counsel for the appellants is absent. No representation.

Learned counsel for the respondent is present and opposes for granting of time.

The appeal is of the year 2016. Even on the previous date of hearing i.e., on 25.08.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants and again on 22.09.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. However, to afford final opportunity, list this matter on 16.03.2023."

RFA No. 58 of 2016

4. Inspite of that there is no representation. I do

not find any reason to adjourn the matter. It appears that

the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the

appeal.

Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PN