The High Court, treating the regular second appeal as withdrawn based on a memo from the appellant's counsel, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn under Section 100 of CPC. The judgment contains no substantive legal proposition.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.151 OF 2012 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
NC: 2024:KHC:12314 RSA No. 151 of 2012
DATED 11.2.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo
seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
SRI M.M.SARVOTHAMAGOWDA
SRI PRABHAKARA M.C.
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
