IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10416/2012 BETWEEN:
M/S PREMIUM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4, ROYAL PARK 34, PARK ROAD, TUSKAR TOWN SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. BRIJ MOHAN ARORA S/O RATTAN CHAND ARORA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.K.M.VAMSHI FOR SRI K.SUMAN, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. SMT. BYALACHAMMA W/O LATE KOOMAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE KR PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 016 2. MUNIYAPPA, S/O SHAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA 2(b) SRI SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA 2(c) SMT.LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIRAJU 2(d) MASTER MANISH MAHAJAN AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIRAJU BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAKSHMI 2(e) SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA 2(a) TO (e) ARE RESIDING AT PATTANDUR AGRAHARA NEAR ITPL, WHITEFIELD POST BANGALORE – 560 066 (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.08.2016) 3. SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE KUNTAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT HONNAGATTA VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 4. SRI CHANDRU G C/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PATTANDUR AGRAHARA NEAR ITPL, WHITEFIELD POST BANGALORE – 560 066 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R3; R2(a TO e) - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43, RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2012 PASSED ON APPLICATION IN O.S.NO.26497/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULES 1 & 2 AND SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed a memo dated 27.02.2017 in Court which reads as follows:
“The Appellant, above named, most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the Appellant to withdraw the above Appeal in view of the fact that protection to the property in question was extended by the Judgement dated 18.3.2013 of this Hon’ble Court in RFA No.990/2012, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that this appeal is filed against an interlocutory order dated 20.10.2012 passed in the suit in O.S.No.26497/2012 and as the suit has been dismissed on 16.01.2017, the appeal has become infructuous. Accepting his submission, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Appeal disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE LB