Karnataka High Court
M/S R.K.Enterprises vs Mr.C.Lakshminarayana on 8 January, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:839
RFA No. 1585 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2020 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S R.K.ENTERPRISES
NO.704, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD
MODI HOSPITAL RAJAJI NAGAR BENGALURU
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH
ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR.SURESH BILLAVA
S/O SHESHA POOJARY
R/O NO.190/2, F-2 1ST CROSS
H.D.S. HUKKERI CHAMBERS
WOC ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 086.
2. MRS.SUSHEELA S BILLAVA
(PARTNER M/S. R.K.ENTERPRISES)
W/O MR.SURESH BILLAVA
R/AT NO.190/2,F-2, 1ST CROSS
Digitally signed H.D.S. HUKKERI CHAMBERS
by
DHANALAKSHMI WOC ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION
MURTHY
Location: High
BENGALURU-560086
Court of ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI. NOORMOHAMMED., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1. MR.C.LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O SRI.CHANDRASHAKAR
AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.659
28TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE
2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 076.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:839
RFA No. 1585 of 2020
2. MISS.L.LEENA
D/O MR.C.LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED MAJOR
R/O NO.659, 28TH MAIN ROAD
1ST PHASE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 076.
(REP BY HER P.A.HOLDER
MR.C.LAKSHMINARAYANA).
3. MISS.L.MALAVIKA
D/O MR.C.LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED MAJOR
R/O NO.659, 28TH MAIN ROAD
1ST PHASE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 076.
4. MR.YASHODARA M
(PARTNER M/S. R.K.ENTERPRISES)
S/O V.MAHALAPOOJARI
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.190/2,F-2, 1ST CROSS
H.D.S. HUKKERI CHAMBERS WOC ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2020
PASSED IN OS.NO.9302/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:839
RFA No. 1585 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Inspite of granting opportunity for six times, the office
objections have not been complied with.
2. Even today, when the matter was called twice,
there is no representation on behalf of the appellants and
office objections have not been complied with. Learned
counsel for the respondents/caveator is present. He
submitted that the suit is filed for ejectment. The
appellants/defendants have already vacated the premises
and the execution petition is pending for arrears of rent.
Even before the Execution Court, the appellants have not
appeared. It appears that the appellants are not interested
in prosecuting the appeal.
3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default and non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
