IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY C.R.P. No.169 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI C. N CHANDRA SHEKAR, SON OF LATE NARASIMHA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.A BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N. B. NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE (NOC) – ABSENT) AND:
1. SRI C .S.KRISHNA SASTRY SON OF LATE CHEPUR SUBBARAYA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SRI RAMA DEVA, SON OF C .S.KRISHNA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. SRI C .K .ANANTHA SON OF C. S. KRISHNA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SRI C. K. ASHWATHANARAYANA SASTRY SON OF C. S. KRISHNA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS ALL THE ABOVE 1 TO 4 RESIDING AT NO.247/1, SIPAYE CROSS, NEAR TILAK CHOUK,, ANEKAL TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT- 562 106.
5. SRI C. K. SATHYANATH SON OF C. S. KRISHNA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. SRI C. K JAGANNATH SON OF C S KRISHNA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 5 AND 6, RESIDING AT NO.13, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106.
7. SRI C .N.VISHWANATH SON OF LATE C. S. NARASIMHA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 8. SRI C. N.SRIKANTA SASTRY SON OF LATE C. S .NARASIMHA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 9. SRI C. N .RAVINDRANATH SON OF LATE C .S. NARASIMHA SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS THE ABOVE 7 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.12/12, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106.
... RESPONDENTS (SRI G. R.LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R7 TO R9 SERVED) - - - - -
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.271/2001 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), ANEKAL, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/S 11 OF CPC AND REJECTING THE SUIT .
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.271/2001 in which respondents filed I.A.II under Sec.11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the principles of res judicata. That application came to be allowed by rejecting the plaint by its order dated 1.1.2013 against which this petition is filed.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo for retirement. Mere filing a memo of retirement unless it is intimated to the party by RPAD and also by producing receipt for having sent memo of retirement by post and the acknowledgment, memo filed for retirement cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
3. Petition is of the year 2013. Petitioner has not shown any interest in seeking stay or necessary interlocutory order. Under these circumstances, the petition is to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE R*