Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46325 (KAR)

M/S ANRIYA PROJECT MANAGEMENT v. SMT CHITTIYAMMA K CHANDRA

RFA/1100/2016 · 2025-06-03

Jyoti M

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2016 BETWEEN M/S.ANRIYA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.42, 3RD FLOOR, R.R.PLAZA, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ...Appellant (By SRIYUTH: MANJUNATH B.S., S.ARUN RAO, CHETHANA, Advocates) AND 1 . SMT CHITTIYAMMA K CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O K CHANDRA, NO.7, MATHMAN LANE, IBRAHIM SAHEB STREET, SHIVAJI NAGAR BANGALORE. 2 . SRI R NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O GUBBI RAMAIAH, RESIDING AT HENNUR, ST THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK RFA.No.1100/2016 ------------------------- 2 3 . SRI R MUNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O GUBBI RAMAIAH, RESIDING AT HENNUR, ST THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 4 . SRI NAZEER ALI KHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O C M GAFFAR KHAN, NO.105, J C ROAD, BANGALORE 5 . SMT SEEMA KHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O NAZEER ALI KHAN, NO.234, 18TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE 6 . SMT HASEENA MALIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O K IQBAL MALIK, RESIDING AT PARAGON RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.1, NO.52, SERPENTINE STREET, RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE 7 . M/S RAKSHA GROUP NO.42, 3RD FLOOR R.R. PLAZA, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ……..Respondents (By SRI.VISHWANATH SHETTY, Advocate for R2) RFA.No.1100/2016 ------------------------- 3 This Regular First Appeal filed U/S 96 of CPC., against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.12.2015 passed in O.S. No.580/2008 on the file of the XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, (CCH 38), Bengaluru City, decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. This Regular First Appeal is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORAL ORDER Smt.Chethana., counsel on behalf of Sri.Manjunath.B.S., for the appellant has appeared in person and seeks short accommodation to do the needful in the matter. This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is plain. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non furnishing of process fee to issue notice to respondent No.1, 3 to 7 for second time. The appeal is filed in 2016. Now we are in the month of June 2025 and the appeal is pending for almost nine years. In the interest of justice and as a last chance, finally, a week’s time is granted to do the needful in the matter, failing which the appeal stands dismissed without reference to the Bench. Sd/- JUDGE RFA.No.1100/2016 ------------------------- 4 NOTE: Court Order dt.03.06.2025 not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed. COPY Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR T By : MK R By : RM C By : STE