N A Ananth vs V Mohan Babu
2024 Latest Caselaw 4526 Kant

Karnataka High Court

N A Ananth vs V Mohan Babu on 14 February, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:6309
                                                         RFA No. 55 of 2010




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
                        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2010 (PAR)


                BETWEEN:

                       MR. N. A. ANANTH,
                       S/O LATE N.A.V. NAIDU,
                       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
                       RESIDING AT NO.80,
                       SSI AREA, RAJAJINAGAR,
                       BANGALORE - 560 010.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI. N. JAIPRAKASH RAO., ADVOCATE)
                (ABSENT)

                AND:

                1.     MR. V.MOHAN BABU,
Digitally signed       S/O LATE R.SAROJA,
by                     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of         2.    MR. V.BALAJI,
Karnataka              S/O LATE R. SAROJA,
                       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

                3.     MR. V.KUMAR,
                       S/O LATE R. SAROJA,
                       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

                4.     MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
                       D/O LATE R. SAROJA,
                               -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC:6309
                                    RFA No. 55 of 2010




     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

5.   MRS.SHANTHI,
     D/O LATE R. SAROJA,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

6.   MRS.SRIDEVI,
     D/O LATE R. SAROJA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

     1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.49, 2ND CROSS,
     CHOLURPALYA,
     MAGADI ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 023.

7.   MR.R.PADMANABHAN,
     S/O LATE V. RAGHAVALU,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.594,
     SAJJAN RAO ROAD,
     V.V.PURAM,
     BANGALORE - 560 016.

8.   MRS.R.CHANDRA,
     D/O LATE V. RAGHAVALU,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.343,
     8TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
     150 FEET ROAD,
     BEHIND KANTHEERAVA STUDIO,
     NANDINI LAYOUT,
     BANGALORE - 560 096.

9.   MRS. R. PADMAVATHI,
     S/O LATE V. RAGHAVALU,
                           -3-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:6309
                                      RFA No. 55 of 2010




    C/O G. SRINIVAS,
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT NO.1547,
    2ND CROSS, NEAR AYYAPA TEMPLE,
    VIJINAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR POST,
    BANGALORE - 560 016.

10. M/S MODERN PROCESS PRINTERS,
    NO.79/29, SSI AREA,
    5TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
    RAJAJINAGAR,
    BANGALORE - 560 010.

    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    PARTNER,
    MR.K.V.NAIK.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI. ZULFIKIRKUMAR SHAFI & S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6 AND FOR C/R1 - 2.)

(SRI. DAYANAND HIREMATH AND MAHESH D.,
ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9.) R-10 IS SERVED.

VIDE ORDER DATED 13.04.2015, NOTICE IS NOT SERVED IN
RESPECT OF R7.
SRI.K.S MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR
PROPOSED LR's OF DECEASED R8.

     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2009 PASSED IN
OS.NO.6596/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -4-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:6309
                                                RFA No. 55 of 2010




                           JUDGMENT

None appears for the appellant.

2. Despite an undertaking by the learned counsel for

the appellant on the last occasion, that he would carry out

the necessary amendment during the course of the day,

amendment has not been carried out.

3. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of

the appellant.

4. Therefore, for non compliance of the order passed

by this Court and also, for failing to comply the

undertaking given to this Court, appeal is dismissed for

non prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PTM