IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.561 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI G N LAKSHMIPATHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs:
1a) L.RAMPRAKSH S/O LATE G.N. LAKSHMIPATHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/1, “HARE KRISHNA” ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560 001.
1b) L.GOPINATH S/O. LATE G.N.LAKSHMIPATHY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, PYCRAFT GARDEN, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 006 NOW AT BANGALORE.
.. APPELLANTS (BY Sri D.N.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S AMATEUR DRAMATIC ASSOCIATION THEATRE TRUST (REGD), A REGISERED TRUST CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OFFICE BEARERS A) SRI.M.K.PANDURANGA SETTY - PRESIDENT B) SMT.VIMALA RANGACHAR - SECRETARY, C) SRI.H.R.ALVA - MEMBER, D) SRI.M.N.NARASIMHAN - MEMBER, E) SRI.M.V.NARAYANA RAO - MEMBER, F) SRI.B.G.RAMAPRASAD - MEMBER AND G)SRI.M.S.SATHYU-MEMBER.
HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT 109, A.D.A. RANGAMANDIRA, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.
2. M/S. D.P.K. ENGINEERING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR -SRI SAMPATH KUMAR, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NOS.1,2,3 AND Dismissed 4(FRONT SIDE), vide order 7,8,9 AND 10 (BACK SIDE), dated:
BASEMENT FLOOR, NO.109, 11.11.2019 ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
3. M/S. SRINIVASA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.S.PRADEEP AND SRI.S.CHANDAN, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NOS 6 (FRONT SIDE) AND 3 (BACK SIDE), NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
4. M/S. RAMSONS AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.M.C.AJITH, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.7, NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
5. M/S. GURU AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.M.KADAPPAN, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NOS.5 (FRONT SIDE) AND 2 (BACK SIDE), NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
6. M/S. VEERABHADRESHWARA TARPAULIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.T.S.RAVINDRA, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.11, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TOA RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
7. M/S. VELU PUMP HOUSE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.B.K.SANMUGA VELU, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT Dimissed SHOP NO.1 (BACK SIDE), Vide order NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, dated:
OPPOSITE TO 11.11.2019 RAVBINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
8. M/S. ELMECH ENGINEERING COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.P.S.NATHAN, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.9 AND 10 (FRONT SIDE) AND 4,5 & 6 (BACK SIDE) NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVBINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
9. M/S. M.RAMAIAH AND SONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETORS SRI.M.S.NANDAKUMAR, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.8, NO.109, ADA RANGAMANDIRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRA KALAKSHETHRA, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU.
.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, BY KESVY & CO., FOR C/R-1;
SRI. H.J.KARIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-6, R-8 & R-9; APPEAL AGAINST R-2 & R-7 DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.11.2019) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.1602/2011, ON THE FILE OF XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsels from both side present.
Perused the memo dated 09.10.2019 filed by the appellants seeking withdrawal of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for a week’s time to furnish the certified copy of the Order dated 23.07.2018 passed in CRP No.420/2017.
I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter regarding consideration of the memo for withdrawal, at the request of the respondent.
As such, the memo is considered and in view of the memo and supporting submissions, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Registry before considering the reasons for refund of the court fee, to verify whether CRP No.420/2017 was a disposal as a settlement between the parties entitling the appellants herein for the refund of the court fee. If so, it is only then, the Registry to refund court fee, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*