In the first appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1-2 CPC, the court dismissed the appeal partly as abated and partly for non-prosecution due to the appellant's lack of active prosecution.
Appeal against the deceased respondent dismissed as abated; appeal against the other respondent dismissed for non-prosecution.
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.
RFA No. 265 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. M. BHARATHI D/O LATE CHANNAMMA W/O VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 25/A, 1ST MAIN 4TH BLOCK, MARUTHINAGARA YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VARAPRASAD K., ADVOCATE AND SMT. KAVITHA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER SRI DEVEGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O NO. 791/E, 1ST CROSS 3RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560040.
RFA No. 265 of 2014
…RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2022 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R1
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, READ WITH ORDER XLI, RUEL-1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.25440/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal against contesting respondent No.1 is dismissed as abated on 20.04.2022.
So far, no steps have been taken in respect of deceased respondent No.1.
RFA No. 265 of 2014
None appears for the appellant. It appears that the
appellant is not interested to prosecute the matter. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the respondent abated for want of contention should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. M. BHARATHI
SRI. B. GANGAPPA
THE GENERAL SECRETARY KENDRA UPADHYAYARA SANGHA BANGALORE SOUTH
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
