The appellate court disposed of an RFA filed under Section 96 of the CPC. The appeal stood dismissed as not pressed after the appellant filed a memo for withdrawal due to the purpose becoming infructuous.
The appeal stands dismissed as not pressed based on the withdrawal memo filed by the counsel.
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 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.395 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.39 P.N.T. LAYOUT, SONNATHAMMANAHALLI TC PALYA HOBLI KR PURAM ROAD BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560036
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
R.F.A.No.395/2020
2
2 . SRI N S NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O B NARASIMHA R/O NO.60, 11TH MAIN, 30TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE BSK BENGALURU-560070
3 . SMT N S NAGALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O B NARASIMHA R/O NO.60, 11TH MAIN, 30TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE BSK BENGALURU-560070
4 . SRI G VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O GURUSWAMY NO.212 BOVI COLONY RAMAMURTHY ANGAR BENGALURU-560036
…RESPONDENTS
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8777/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
R.F.A.No.395/2020
3
O R D E R
Learned counsel for appellants who is physically present files a memo for withdrawal of the appeal stating that the
purpose of filing the appeal has become infructuous.
In the light of the memo and supporting submission of the learned counsel for appellants, the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
Refund of the court fee to be considered by the registry in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.1/2020 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Keshava Murthy
Smt Ratna
Smt R Savithri
Sri N S Nagaraj
Smt N S Nagalakshmi
Sri G Venkatesh
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
