This regular first appeal against a decree for specific performance was disposed of by permitting the appellant to withdraw the case. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and an order was passed directing the refund of the court fee paid.
Appellant permitted to withdraw the appeal; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; refund of court fee directed.
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: 2024:KHC:43428-DB RFA No. 1164 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G. SHESHADRI S/O LATE GOVINDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, G.G. PALACE, C.M ROAD, K.R NAGAR TOWN AND TALUK-571 602 MYSORE DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. D. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1ST CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD, C.V RAMAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 002 KARNATAKA STATE.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
Learned counsel Sri D.Basavarajappa for appellant
submits that, he has filed a memo for withdrawal of this appeal. The memo reads as under:
“The Advocate for the appellant in this Regular First Appeal most respectfully pray for permitting this appellant to withdraw this case as this appellant on his own will, not press matter.
The Advocate for the appellant most respectively prays for passing the order for refunding the 75% of the Court Fee paid by him in the interest of justice and equity”.
The memo is taken on record.
Consequently, the appellant is permitted to withdraw this
appeal as sought for.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn .
He also prays to pass an order for refunding of the Court fee paid by him.
Keeping in view the Court Fee paid by the appellant as stated in the memo, it is deemed appropriate to state that the office is directed to refund the Court Fee paid by the appellant.
Ordered accordingly,
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
HKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant was permitted to withdraw the regular first appeal in the interest of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. G. Sheshadri
Sri. M.S Bhaskar
Sri. Sundaresh
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
