IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO R.F.A.No.592/2004 C/W R.F.A.Nos.591/2004 AND 593/2004 IN R.F.A.NO.592/2004 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI.K.BHASKAR, S/O LAE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI.K.SUBRAMANI, S/O LATE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SRI.D.K.GOPAL, S/O LATE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SRI.K.SRINIVASA, S/O LATE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOODI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM – HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER, SRI.T.N.NANJUNDAPPA, S/O THAMMAIAH GOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, NO.53, SARASWATHI NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 40.
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV., - ABSENT) AND:
…APPELLANTS 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 1.
2. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, BANGALORE.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 22.12.2005, PASSED IN R.A.NO.116/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & CJM, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2001 PASSED IN O.S.NO.151/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MANGALURU, D.K.
IN R.F.A.NO.591/2004 BETWEEN:
SRI.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE D.MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER, T.N.NANJUNDAPPA, S/O THAMMAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.53, SARASWATHI NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 40.
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV., - ABSENT) AND:
…APPELLANT 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 1.
2. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, BANGALORE.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1;
…RESPONDENTS SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 27.11.2003, PASSED IN O.S.NO.4930/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH NO.9) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTON.
IN R.F.A.NO.593/2004 BETWEEN:
SRI.H.K.SUBBARAJU, S/O LATE KRISHNAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 978, HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE – 48.
REPRESENTED BY SRI.T.N.NANJUNDAPPA, S/O THAMMAIAH GOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, NO.63, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA EXT., BANGALORE – 40.
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV., - ABSENT) …APPELLANT AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 1.
2. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, BANGALORE.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1;
…RESPONDENTS SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 27.11.2003, PASSED IN O.S.NO.4932/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH NO.9) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTON.
THESE R.F.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Sri Shivarudra, learned counsel for the appellants in all the three appeals is absent and there is no representation.
2. Matters are of the year 2004 in terms of the appeals and in terms of the original suits, the matters are of the year 1996. The age of the suits are 23 years. Considering the age and stage of the cases, there are no grounds to adjourn the matters. All the three appeals are stated to be connected to O.S.Nos.4930, 4931 and 4932 of 1996. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Hence, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj