Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

P Subhash Sonof Late T vs N R Ramakrishna

High Court Of Karnataka|27 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2074 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
P Subhash Sonof Late T Prakash Doing business at No.13 12th Cross, Puttenahalli Kothanur Dinne Main Road J P Nagar 7th Phase Bengaluru-560078 (By Sri. Nischal Dev, Adv.) AND:
N R Ramakrishna Son of N Ramappa Aged about 48 years Residing at No.56, 3rd Cross Bank of Baroda Colony Puttenahali J P Nagar, 7th Phase Bengaluru-560078 (By Sri. K Srinivas, Adv.) ...Appellant ...Respondent This Regular First Appeal under section 96 R/W order XLI Rule 1 of CPC., against the judgment and decree Dated:14.07.2017 passed in OS.No.8993/2015 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, partly decreeing the suit for vacant possession and recovery of money.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel from both side present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant files a memo stating that the respondent has forcibly taken the physical possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the same, the present appeal has become infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed. He has also sought for liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the respondent for recovery of Security Deposit and damages.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent though submits that he has no objection to dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous, but, submits that taking over the possession of the suit property was not forceful.
4. Without going to the aspect as to whether the alleged taking over of possession was forcibly by the respondent, it would suffice to say that in view of the memo and submission of both side, the appeal has become infructuous.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed as having become infructuous. The request of the appellant for initiating proceedings for recovery of Security Deposit and damages cannot be considered by granting liberty. However, he can pursue the legal remedies available in accordance with law.
Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court fee in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P Subhash Sonof Late T vs N R Ramakrishna

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 May, 2019
Judges
  • H B Prabhakara Sastry