Sri. Hanumantharayappa vs Mr. Asif
2023 Latest Caselaw 8750 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Hanumantharayappa vs Mr. Asif on 28 November, 2023

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC:42878
                                                      MFA No. 5208 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5208 OF 2016 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
                         S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
                         @ RAMAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

                   2.    SRI. GOVINDARAJU
                         S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
                         @ RAMAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

                   3.    SRI. VENKATAPPA
                         S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
                         @ RAMAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

Digitally signed   4.    SRI. NAGARAJU
by                       S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY                   @ RAMAIAH
Location: High           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka
                   5.    SRI. R. VENKATACHALAIAH
                         S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
                         @ RAMAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

                   6.    SRI. RAJANNA
                         S/O. LATE MADIVALA RAMAIAH
                         @ RAMAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                         ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
                         KACHOHALLI VILLAGE
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:42878
                                   MFA No. 5208 of 2016




     DASANAPURA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 123.
                                           ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHREENIVASA K L ., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

1.   MR. ASIF
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

2.   MR. IRFAN
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

3.   MR. GHOUSE
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

4.   MRS. SULTHANA
     @ SULTHANA BANU
     D/O. AMEER JAN
     W/O. ARIF
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     R1 TO R4 ARE RESIDENTS OF
     KACHOHALLI VILLAGE
     DASANAPURA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

5.   MR. AMEER JAN
     S/O. ABDUL BASHEER SAAB
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

6.   MR. AMZAD
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

7.   MR. ALTHAF
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                            -3-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC:42878
                                   MFA No. 5208 of 2016




8.   MRS. ABIDA BANU
     D/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

9.   MR. AHMED
     S/O. AMEER JAN
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

10. MR. ARIF PASHA
    S/O. AMEER JAN
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

     R5 TO R10 ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.35, 1ST "A" CROSS
     PADARAYANAPURA
     BENGALURU-560 026.

11. MRS. NAVIDA
    @ NAVEEDA BANU
    D/O. AMEER JAN
    W/O. WASHIQ AHMED
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
    RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS
    TIPPUNAGARA, RAMANAGARA-562 159.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE IS NOT ORDERED TO RESPONDENTS)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:26.4.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.274/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39,
RULE 1 & 2, R/W SEC 151 OF CPC.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -4-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:42878
                                          MFA No. 5208 of 2016




                           JUDGMENT

When the matter was called twice, none appeared

for the appellants. The suit is of the year 2015. IA filed by

the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has been

rejected on 26.04.2016. Now, the suit is set down for the

evidence of the parties. It appears that the appellants are

not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CM