Dismissed
Sri Subbanna v. v Dinesh Kumar
Karnataka HCRFA/566/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013 IN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013 IN THE…
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.566/2013 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PRABHU KUMARA NAIKA Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE LRS. OF THE APPELLANT NOS.1 (A) TO (C) ARE R/AT HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE MADAVARA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER V MARAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.68, 2ND CROSS H.A.L. 2ND STAGE OLD THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE – 8 … APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NARAYAN BHAT K, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.REVATHI ASSOCIATES)
NC: 2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013
AND:
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1, KOTE BEEDI YELAHANKA
BANGALORE – 64
NC: 2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013
YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
SON OF LATE T V NAGENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SON OF LATE T V NAGENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NO.103 SUGGAPPA LAYOUT YELAHANKA NORTH BANGALORE - 64
SON OF LATE VENKOBA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SON OF T V NAGENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NOS.12 TO 14 RESIDING AT NEAR GOPALASWAMY TEMPLE KOTE BEEDI, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE – 64 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.RAVINDRA R, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 & R8; R7, R12, R13, R14 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; R9 TO R11 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI, RULE-1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED ON I.A.5 IN O.S.840/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE I.A.5 AND REJECTING THE PLAINT.
NC: 2023:KHC:42040-DB RFA No.566/2013
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The memo of retirement is not preceded by the service of retirement notice. The appellant also not present before the Court, he is unrepresented.
complied. Therefore, the appeal already stood dismissed.
No further orders are required.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
SMT SARASWATHAMMA AND 1(A) TO 1(C)
V DINESHKUMAR
K.S.MUDAGAL
K V ARAVIND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court