IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.133 OF 2011 Between:
Sri.B.B.Ranganath S/o.Late Byatappa, Aged about 57 years, Working as Junior, Compositor, Government Press, R/at No.52 (Northern Portion), Pipeline, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bengaluru-560 040. ... Appellant (By Sri.S.B.Totad, Advocate) And:
1. B.B.Lokanath, Since dead by his LRs 1(a) Smt.Kamalamma W/o.Late Lokanath, Aged about 60 years, 1(b) Shalini, D/o. Late Lokanath, Aged about 36 years.
1(c) Lakshmi D/o. Late Lokanath, Aged about 31 years.
All are R/at No.52, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bengaluru-560 040.
2. Smt. Girijamma W/o. Dr. Rama Rao.N.R, Aged about 56 years, Manjula Dispensary, Padarayanapura, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 026.
3. Smt.B.Sarala W/o Nijaguna, Aged about 47 years, R/at No.28, 7th Cross, 12th Main Road, Srinagar, Bengaluru-50. ... Respondents (By Sri.D.C.Srinivasa, Advocate for R1 (A &C); Sri.B.Ramesh, Advocate for R1 (B), R2 and R3) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated: 23.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.1483/1996 on the file of the I-Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowing the suit for partition.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
ORDER Sri.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate files a memo seeking permission to retire on behalf of the respondent No.1(a). Sri.Srinivasa.D.C, another advocate has filed vakalath for respondent No.1(a). Sri.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane is permitted to retire from the case.
2. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) and (c) has filed a memo for disposing of this appeal. In the memo, it is stated that respondent Nos.1(a) and (c) filed cross-objections in this appeal, that on 18.06.2014, this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and that cross objections was heard and allowed on 22.07.2015 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for further consideration. In view of this, appeal does not survive.
3. I have perused the judgment of this Court in RFA Crob No.20/2011. It makes it very clear that cross objections was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to reconsider the preliminary decree. Opportunity has been given to the plaintiff to cross- examine the defendants. Therefore, the effect of allowing the cross objections is that entire judgment of the trial Court has been set aside. For this reason, the interest of the appellant is not affected. Appeal does not survive in view of the order passed in the cross objections. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN