IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD RFA NO.211/2013 (PAR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI VIJAY KANNON S/O LATE T K KARUNAKARAN AGE 51 YEARS R/AT TIMRI FARM KALKUNDA VILLAGE BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TQ MYSORE DISTRICT.
2. SMT MANJULA D/O KARUNAKARAN AGE 49 YEARS R/AT NO.1009, BLOCK 2B SMR VINAYKITTY, MIYAPUR HYDERABAD-500049 (BY SRI. JAGADISH G KUMBAR ADV. FOR SRI. SATISH G RAIKAR, ADV.) AND 1. SMT GEETHA VASUDEVAN ... APPELLANTS W/O SRI R VASUDEVAN AGE 62 YEARS R/AT NO.14 NANJAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027 2. SMT ARUNA DURAISWAMY W/O R DURAISWAMY AGE 59 YEARS R/AT NO.14/1, NANJAPPA ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560027 3. SMT AMRUTHA BHAKTAVACHALAM W/O LATE DR BHAKTAVACHALAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PRESENTLY AT P O BOX 210502 BED FORD, T X - 76095 - 7502 U S A 4. DR B ASHOO M RAO D/O DR BHAKTAVACHALAM AGE 61 YEARS NO.5800, FOREST HEGHS LAVES DR FORT WORT TX 76132 USA 5. MR SHAILANDER TIMIRI S/O LATE DR BHAKTAVACHALAM AGE 58 YEARS NO.1332, 139 AVENUE NE 9-5, BELLEVUE, WA.USA.
6. SMT INDIRA W/O SRI SHANMUGA SUNDARAM AGE 80 YEARS NO.53, II MAIN ROAD PRASHANTH NAGAR VIJAYANAGAR NORTH BANGALORE 560079 7. SMT RUKMINI SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS SRI R SRIDHAR S/O LATE SMT RUKMINI AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.387, FIRST BLOCK 19TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010 8. SRI BADARINATH S/O NOT KNOWN AGE: MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS 4 & 5 ARE TENANTS IN TWO PORTIONS NOS.96A AND 96, 3RD BLOCK ANANDA RAO EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA, ADV. FOR R8 R3 & R6 ARE DEAD R1 & R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 05.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16611/2001 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo which is signed by the appellants stating that the appellants intend to withdraw the appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.
Memo is perused.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed and withdrawn.
In view of withdrawal of the appeal, I.A.1/2018 to I.A.3/2018 also stand dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DM/-