Sri Hari Ram vs Smt Parmila
2024 Latest Caselaw 921 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Hari Ram vs Smt Parmila on 10 January, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:1256
                                                       RFA No. 113 of 2018




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2018 (INJ)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI HARI RAM
                   S/O SRI.TULASIRAM
                   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                   R/AT NO.66, SAGAR COLONY
                   3RD CROSS, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI
                   IIM POST, BANNERGHATTA
                   BANGALORE-560 076.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. KUMARA K G .,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   SMT PARMILA
                   D/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY
                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
Digitally signed   R/AT NO.23, SWATHI NILAYA
by
DHANALAKSHMI       II CROSS, SAGAR LAYOUT
MURTHY             DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI
Location: High
Court of           BANGALORE-560 076.
Karnataka                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. M N KRISHNA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

                        THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
                   RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
                   DATED 23.10.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5106/2014 ON THE FILE
                   OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                   BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
                   INJUNCTION.
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:1256
                                           RFA No. 113 of 2018




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

1. This appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI

Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed by the

plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree

dated 23.10.2017 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.43) in

O.S.No.5106/2014 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff

has been dismissed.

2. This Court by order dated 07.08.2018 has admitted

the present appeal and directed to hear the matter along

with MFA No.1463/2015 which was filed by the appellant

herein. In that case, the suit filed by one N. Viswanathan

in respect of very same suit schedule property has been

decreed and the injunction order has been granted against

the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant herein has filed RFA No.1463/2015. The same

came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.12.2018.

NC: 2024:KHC:1256

3. Today, when the matter was called in the morning

session, none appeared for the appellant and in the

afternoon session also, there is no representation on

behalf of the appellant. In spite of granting time on

25.07.2023, 23.09.2023, paper book has not been filed.

4. Therefore, it is appears that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. In view of disposal of the main appeal, all pending

applications do not survive and the same are also disposed

of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA