Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32127 (KAR)

B ALLABAKASH v. SRI NAWAB

RFA/1062/2006 · 2025-10-10

V Srishananda

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:27493 RFA No. 1062 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2006 (DEC) BETWEEN: B. ALLABAKASH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A). SMT. KULSUM BEE WIFE OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS APPELLANTS NOS. 1(B) TO 1(G) 1(B). SMT. KURSHEED WIFE OF P. PYAREKHAN DAUGHTER OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 1(C). SMT. MALLIKA WIFE OF HABIBKHAN DAUGHTER OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 1(D). SRI. B. AMEER SON OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 1(E). SMT. PRAVEEN WIFE OF B. IQBAL PASHA DAUGHTER OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 1(F). SMT. SHAHEENA WIFE OF HUSSAIN DAUGHTER OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:27493 RFA No. 1062 of 2006 1(D). SRI. B. DADAPEER SON OF LATE B. ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 42YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.3-6-18C JVS STREET, HINDUPUR - 515 201 ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI: G.R. VENKATESH & SRI:PATAN RAHAMATHULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. NAWAB SON OF RASULLBEIG AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PLASTIC MERCHANT NEAR MASJID ROAD VI CROSS GANGONDANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 039. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: M.C. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5116/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. THIS R.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27493 RFA No. 1062 of 2006 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time. 2. The appeal is of the year 2006. Even after 17 years, learned counsel for the appellants is not to ready to address his arguments. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default i.e., for non prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-