Sri. Venkatesh vs Sri. Vimal Kishore
2025 Latest Caselaw 338 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Venkatesh vs Sri. Vimal Kishore on 3 June, 2025

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                        -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:18629
                                                  RFA No. 962 of 2016


              HC-KAR



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                      BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                  REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2016 (MON)


              BETWEEN:

              SRI. VENKATESH
              S/O. OBAYYA,
              AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
              R/AT NO. 36, VADERAHALLI LAYOUT,
              VADERAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
              BANGALORE-560 097.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
              (BY SMT. VIDYA.S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

              AND:

                    SRI. VIMAL KISHORE
                    S/O. V.ARJUN LAL PITILIYA,
                    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                    R/AT NO. 11, RMV 2ND STAGE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R LOTEGOLLA HALLI, NEAR GANDHI SCHOOL,
Location: HIGH      BANGALORE-560 094.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                              ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

                   THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER
              XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 CPC 1908.

                  THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
              ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
              UNDER:
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:18629
                                            RFA No. 962 of 2016


HC-KAR



                         ORAL JUDGMENT

When the matter is called, there is no representation on

behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video

conferencing.

Sri.Vijaya Shekara Gowda.V., counsel for the respondent

has appeared in person.

A perusal of the daily order sheet reflects that the appeal

was listed on 25.07.2023, on that day, counsel for the

respondent submitted that the sole respondent died on

18.07.2023. Taking note of the said submission, time was

granted for the appellant to do the needful in the matter. Now

we are in the month of June 2025. It's almost two years. The

application to bring the legal representatives of deceased sole

respondent is not filed. By operation of law, the appeal abates.

Sd/-

(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

MRP