IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.410 OF 2004 BETWEEN Mr. S.Rayappan, Aged 62 years, S/o. A.Swaminathan No.38, Kadirenapalya, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560038. Also at D.No.10, ISI Complex, R.V.College Post, Bengaluru-560050.
(By Sri. S.Nagaraja, Advocate and …Appellant Sri. K.M.Ramachandra Char, Advocate - Absent) AND 1. Smt. Lakshmamma, Hindu, Major, 2. Sri. Maniveerappa, S/o. Late Sri. Oblappa, Hindu, Major, Both residing at B.Narayanapura, Oblappa Layout Bengaluru South Taluk, Dooravaninagar Post Bengaluru-560016.
3. Smt. Munivenkatamma, W/o. Late Marappa, Hindu, Major, A.Narayanapura, Dooravaninagar Post, Bengaluru-560016.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Byappanahalli Notified area committee Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru.
(By Sri. G.Papireddy, Advocate for R3, …Respondents Sri. L.Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate for R4, R1 and R2 - served) This RFA is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2003 passed in O.S.No.1176/96 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8), dismissing the suit for specific performance.
This RFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The order sheet dated 19.09.2018 shows that the appellant and his counsel were absent. There is no representation at all. Again on 03.01.2019, appellant’s counsel was absent and learned counsel for respondent no.3 was present. Today also counsel for the appellant is absent. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 is present. This shows that the appellant has lost interest in the appeal. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the appellant has sold the property to his son by executing a sale deed dated 26.04.2012 and the son has now filed a suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.5402/2104 in the court of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. According to learned counsel for respondent no.3 this appeal has become infructuous. But taking note of the fact that the appellant’s counsel has been absent continuously, this appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sd