IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.435 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Nayeemulla S/o Sri Kaleem Aged about 32 years, (At present 33 years) R/a No.41, 9th Main, Pillanna Garden 3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 045. .. Appellant ( By Sri Anees Ali Khan, Advocate) AND :
Sri H.Mohammed Rahmathulla S/o Late Mohammed Habeeb Aged about 64 years, (At present 65 years) R/at No.18, 4th Cross, Ezekiel Industrial Layout, Bangalore – 560 045. .. Respondent ( By Sri R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate ) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2019, passed in OS.No.7873/2017, on the file of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for ejectment.
RFA.No.435/2019 2 This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating that he has vacated the premises, as such, the appeal has become infructuous.
In view of the memo and supporting submission, the Appeal stands disposed of as having become infructuous. His request for refund of the Court fee is left to the Registry to see his entitlement and eligibility and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Learned counsel’s request that this Court should specifically give direction for refund of the Court fee is not acceptable in view of the contents of the memo filed today which is reproduced here above.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/