Sri G N Rathnabalaraju vs Sri T C Rudramurthy
2024 Latest Caselaw 342 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri G N Rathnabalaraju vs Sri T C Rudramurthy on 4 January, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:352
                                                        MFA No. 8325 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8325 OF 2023 (CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI G.N. RATHNABALARAJU
                         S/O SRI NEMIRAJAPPA
                         SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

                         SAROJAMMA,
                         W/O LATE G.N.RATHNABALARAJU,
                         SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

                   1.    SMT. SNEHALATHA,
                         W/O SREENIVASAMURTHY,
                         D/O LATE RATHNABALARAJU,
                         AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                         R/AT SWASTIK NILAYA,
                         2ND CROSS, UPPARAHALLI GATE,
                         TUMAKURU TOWN-572102,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH                                                      ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                                (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                         SRI T.C.RUDRAMURTHY
                         S/O B. CHANNAVEERAPPA,
                         SINCE DEAD BY HIS
                         LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

                   1.    T.S. SAROJAMMA,
                         W/O LATE RUDRAMURTHY,
                         AGED MAJOR,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:352
                                    MFA No. 8325 of 2023




2.   T.R. MAHESH
     S/O LATE RUDRAMURTHY,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

3.   T.R. NIRANJAN
     S/O LATE RUDRAMURTHY,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
     R/AT IDGAHMOHALL, 2ND CROSS,
     TUMAKURU-572105.

4.   T.R. VEENA
     W/O T.S. JAGADISH,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     R/AT K.R.STREET, CHICKPET,
     TUMAKURU TOWN-572102.

5.   T.R. ANITHA
     W/O T.S. SHANKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/AT 3RD CROSS,
     GANDHINAGAR,
     TUMAKURU TOWN-572102.

6.   BAHUBALI
     S/O RATHNABALARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

7.   DHARANENDRAKUMAR
     S/O RATHNABALARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

8.   PARSHWANATH
     S/O RATHNABALARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 8 ARE
     R/AT BELLAVI VILLAGE,
     BELLAVI HOBLI,
     TUMAKURU TALUK-572107,
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:352
                                         MFA No. 8325 of 2023




     RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 8 ARE
     THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
     DECEASED PLAINTIFF - RATHNABALARAJU

9.   GOVINDASWAMY
     S/O PACHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
     PROP. SHIVASHAKTHI ELECTRICALS,
     BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
     NEAR BUS STAND,
     TUMAKURU-572102
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(t) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2023       PASSED      IN
MISC.NO.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 19 OF CPC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo for

withdrawal of the appeal to approach the Jurisdictional Court

and seek appropriate remedy. The appellant has also sought

for a direction to the Registry to hand over certified copies to

the appellant and the appellant has also undertaken to replace

the certified copies with photocopies.

2. In view of the memo, the appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn. The Registry is directed to return the certified

copies to the appellant. The question of excluding the period of

NC: 2024:KHC:352

limitation during the subsistence of the above appeal does not

arise and the appellant can plead the same before the

appropriate Court with regard to filing of the appeal before this

Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST