IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.180/2017 (IO) BETWEEN:
P. THAMMAYANNA BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT.MADAMMA, W/O LATE THAMMAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 8TH CROSS, JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
1(b) SRI.RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE THAMMAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 8TH CROSS, JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
1(c) SMT.PRAMEELA, W/O B.SRINIVASAN, D/O LATE THAMMAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, “ELZA ENCLAVE” CAUVERY NAGAR, VADDARAPALYA, AGRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 043.
1(d) KUMARI, D/O LATE THAMMAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 8TH CROSS, JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. RAMAREDDY, HINDU MAJOR, MANAGING PARTNER, PADMANABHA BRICK WORKS, ULSOOR, BANGALURU.
2. M/S. PADMANABHA BRICK WORKS, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.K.BALAKRISHNA REDDY, HAVING ITS FACTORY AND OFFICE, AT KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BENGALURU-560 037.
3. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ASSET RE-CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT NO.1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BANGALURU-52 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) …… THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.XI IN EX. NO.1715/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. ALLOWING THE IA NO.XI FILED UNDER SECTION 44 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC., THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER After arguing the matter at length on several occasions, learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the fact that the order passed by the Trial Court exercising powers under Section 144 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is appealable, in view of the provisions of Section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo seeking permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition, with liberty to file an appeal and to urge the ground of delay in the said appeal showing the reasons of pendency of the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
3. The Memo is accepted.
4. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm