Dismissed¶34

Sri L Kumaraguru v. Sri Sathyanarayana

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025RFA/1066/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), RFA No. 1066 of 2010 (DEC), decided 16.10.2025 by R. Nataraj J.: appeal under Section 96 CPC against decree dated 05.03.2010 in O.S.No.8192/2001 (XXVII-Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore) dismissing a suit for declaration and possession; appeal dismissed for non-prosecution as appellants' counsel was absent on 14.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and 16.10.2025; no merits adjudicated; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, there having been no representation for the appellants when the appeal was listed on 14.10.2025, again on 15.10.2025, and once more on the date of delivery of judgment. ¶34

Sri L Kumaraguru Vs Sri Sathyanarayana — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41439 RFA No. 1066 of 2010

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1066 OF 2010 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. L. KUMARAGURU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶8

SRI. L. SHARAVANAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE SONS OF SRI. LOGANATHAN R/O 125, 11^TH MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE-560052

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA S/O SRI. K. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O NO.2, MUDDAPPA ROAD, MARUTHISEVANAGAR BANGALORE-560052

¶15

THE SUB-REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE, NARASIMHARAJA SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY H.U.D.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41439 RFA No. 1066 of 2010

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

SRI. D. LOGANATHAN S/O SRI DORAIRAJ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.50, R.P. ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.L. DAYANANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 4;

¶23

SRI. MEHTER M. AZZAM, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8192/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal was listed on 14.10.2025. The learned counsel for the appellants was absent. In order to accommodate him, this appeal was listed on 15.10.2025. On 15.10.2025 also, there was no representation for the appellants

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41439 RFA No. 1066 of 2010

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

and therefore, the case was listed today. Even today, there is

¶33

no representation for the appellants.

¶34

Hence, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶35