The Karnataka High Court disposed of Regular Second Appeal R.S.A. No. 830 of 2014 as withdrawn after the appellants' counsel stated that the legal representatives were not intending to prosecute the appeal.
Regular Second Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
R.S.A. No.830 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
...APPELLANTS
(APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1)
(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D.S., ADV )
AND:
2
NOW AT PALYA HARIHARA TALUK
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D P MAHESH FOR R1; R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2019 APPEAL STANDS ABATED AGAINST R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CIVIL POCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN R.A.NO.93/2010 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN O.S.NO.244/2007 DECREEING THE SUIT AND ETC.,
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for appellants filed memo stating
that legal representatives of appellants are not intending to prosecute the aforesaid appeal. Hence, appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Memo for withdrawal is accepted.
Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed
as withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
RR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHAGYAMMA
N.S.NAVEEN
CHI. BASAVARAJ N.S.
BHEEMANAGOUDA @ BHEEMARAJ
NINGAPPA
KUM. BHARATHI N S
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
