Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77560 (KAR)

SOMU v. SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA

RFA.CROB/7/2016 · 2025-11-20

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48371 RFA.CROB No. 7 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 7 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: SOMU S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDENTS OF NO.137, XX CROSS, XVI MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 076. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. N. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 2. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 99 YEARS 3. SRI. ERAPPA S/O DODDA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. MUNEERAPPA S/O DODDA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48371 RFA.CROB No. 7 of 2016 5. SRI.NAGARAJU S/O DODDA ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. SRI.YERRAPPA S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 7. SRI.LAKSHMAN @ MANJUNATHA S/O YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 8. SRI.NAGARAJU S/O YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.04.2023) 9. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 10. SRI. V.GOPAL S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 AND 9 AND 10 ARE RESIDENTS BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA 1746/2007 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2007 PASSED IN OS NO.9575/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH 13), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48371 RFA.CROB No. 7 of 2016 THIS RFA.CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER None appears for the cross objector. Office objections are not complied despite granting sufficient time. Cross-objection is filed by the cross- objector before this Court on 29.03.2016. Even after granting sufficient time, six office objections remain on record not complied. Hence, cross objection is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0