Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25237 (KAR)

SRI SRINIVAS MURTHY v. SRI N CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

RFA/1093/2013 · 2025-01-15

Anu Sivaraman, Vijaykumar A Patil

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1461-DB RFA No. 1093 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE B.S. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SMT. S.V. SHOBHA D/O LATE B.S. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT. S.V. SHARADHA D/O LATE B.S. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE B.S. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT. No.409 SHAKAMBARI NAGARA J.P. NAGARA BENGALURU-560 079 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH N.J., ADVOCATE -(ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI. N. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE PATEL NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1461-DB RFA No. 1093 of 2013 R/AT No.100/1 ANNASANDRAPALAYA VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 017 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDING KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GA FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2013 PASSED IN O.S. No.5263/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1461-DB RFA No. 1093 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) There is no appearance for the appellants in the morning session as well as in the second round, when the matter is called out. 2. Neither paper book has been filed nor the cost has been paid as directed by this Court. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18