IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3211/2007 BETWEEN:
B.E.Eshappa, S/o B.R.Eshwarappa, Age: 45 years, Occ: Deputy Manager, Madras Fertilizers Limited, R/o No.404, 5th Main, Nagendra Block, B.S.K.3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 050. .. APPELLANT (By Shri N.I.Ganesh, Advocate) AND:
G.S.Vasantha Kumar, S/o Siddappa, Age: 57 years, Occ: Attender, Archeological Department represented by his GPA Holder, V.Rajesh, S/o Vasantha Kumar, Age: 30 years, R/o Bandamma Banashankari Nilaya Lingadahalli Road, Tarikere – 577 101, Chikmagalore District. .. RESPONDENT (By Shri K.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate) This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2007 passed in R.A.No.10/2005 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC, Tarikere, partly allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.192/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and Addl.JMFC, Tarikere.
This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
ORDER Heard the appellant’s Counsel and the respondent’s Counsel.
2. I.A.1/2017 is filed under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, for brevity). The appellant has prayed for permitting his power of attorney Shri K.G.Thippesh to withdraw the appeal on his behalf. In the affidavit filed by the appellant, it is clearly stated that he is working at Hyderabad and therefore, he is unable to come over to Bengaluru to instruct his Counsel. For this purpose, he has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of K.G.Thippesh to represent him in the appeal and also for withdrawing the said appeal. A copy of the Power of Attorney is produced.
3. A Joint Memo is also filed by the parties stating that the matter is amicably settled between them outside the Court. The Power of Attorney of the appellant has signed this memo. The respondent has also signed this memo. Therefore, on the basis of the Joint Memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Another application under Order XIII Rule 9 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant seeking return of the original documents. These were produced in the original suit and marked as Exhibits D.1 to D.13. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on the basis of the Joint Memo, the original documents marked as Exhibits D.1 to D.13 be returned to the appellant’s Power of Attorney.
Sd/- JUDGE nv