Dismissed
Mr v. Manoharlal Thekri v Smt Latha Karunan
Karnataka HCRFA/1553/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.1553 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Mr. V. Manoharlal Thekri Aged about 71 years S/o. late Vensimal Thekri Represented by Power of Attorney Holder
Mr. Rajkumar M. Jagthianai Son of Mohan N. Jagthianai Aged about 53 years,
Both residing at No.239/240, 8th Main Road, Shanthinikethan Layout, Arekere, Bengaluru - 560 076.
…Appellant
(By Sri. Shreyas B.S., Advocate)
AND:
R.F.A.No.1553/2018
2
…Respondents (By Sri. Poonacha, C.M., Advocate for Caveator/Respondent No.1)
This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records in O.S.No.6589/2007 on the file of the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore; set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 14-06-2018 in O.S.No.6589/2007 by the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH_53); and to grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and also grant costs of the entire proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.
This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Called again.
Learned counsel for the appellant is physically present and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 is appearing through video conference.
In view of the fact that the appellant has engaged another counsel who has already filed his vakalath, the learned counsel
R.F.A.No.1553/2018
3
Sri.T.S. Sathish is permitted to retire from appearing for the appellant as prayed in the memo dated 29-09-2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since a minor typographical error has crept in the affidavit filed by the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the appeal, in mentioning the Original Suit number, he would be, in addition to the same, also filing a memo, not pressing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating that he does not want to press the appeal.
The caveator/first respondent's counsel submits his no objection for the same.
In view of the affidavit accompanied by the memo filed today and also the supporting submission, the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, the pending I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV*
Mr. V. Manoharlal Thekri
Mr. Rajkumar M. Jagthianai
Smt. Latha Karunan
The Joint Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Arekere Sub-Division, BBMP
Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court