Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 87748 (KAR)

SRI. JAGADISH v. SRI. C B SATHYANARAYANA @ SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA

RFA/775/2018 · 2025-10-31

D K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43803-DB RFA No. 775 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2018 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE SANJEEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O GOLENAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 128. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUMASHEKAR K.M., ADVOCATE AND SRI. D.S. SURESHA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI. C.B. SATHYANARAYANA @ SATHYANARAYANA GOWDA S/O SRI BHEEMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SMT. LEELA W/O SRI C.B. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. MISS. BHOOMIKA D/O SRI C.B. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43803-DB RFA No. 775 of 2018 THIRD RESPONDENT IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. C.B. SATHYANARAYANA FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOLENARASIPURA ROAD BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL CHANNAPATNA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2018 IN OS NO.161/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) There is no representation on behalf of the appellant though case has been called twice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43803-DB RFA No. 775 of 2018 2. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Any interim order operating stands discharged. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9