IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.926 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. M.S.Leela W/o. Late S.G.Nagaraj, Hindu, Aged about 62 years, Residing at No.289, 5th Main, 7th Cross, ST Bed (Koramangala) Bengaluru-560 034.
2. Smt. R.S.Suma D/o. Sri. R.K.Shankar, Hindu, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.113/D, 8th Cross, Ashoknagar, BSK 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 028.
3. Sri. S.G.Krishna Murthy S/o. Late Gangadharaiah, Hindu, Aged about 80 years, Residing at No.204, 7th Cross, Shastrinagar, Bengaluru-560 028.
(By Sri.A.V.Srinivas, Advocate) …Appellants AND:
1. Smt. P.Saroja Devi W/o. M.Balasundram, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No.110, 3rd Cross, ITI Layout, Balajinagar, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.
2. Sri. T.S.Sundaraj S/o. Late Subramani, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.12/4, BP Enterprises, 1st Main, II Cross, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.
3. V. Babu S/o. Late Velayudham, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.12/4, BP Enterprises, 1st Main, II Cross, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Sri. R.Venkatesh Babu S/o. B.Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.57, 6th Cross, 6th Main, Srinivasanagar, Bengaluru-560 085.
5. Sri. P.N.Jayaram S/o. Late P.G.Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 72 years, Residing at No.289, 5th Main, 7th Cross, ST Bed (Koramangala) Bengaluru-560 034.
…Respondents **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:30.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.3692/2014 on the file of the 42nd Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH No.43), dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellants present and submits that despite his sufficient attempts to contact the appellants, he could not take fresh steps to ensure service of notice upon respondents.
In view of the above submission, since the appellants themselves are not evincing any interest to take fresh steps to ensure service of notice upon all the respondents, the Court is constrained to treat that the appellants are not prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for not taking steps against the respondents and for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE PN