IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 1748 OF 2017 (PAR) Between:
T. PRABHAKARA BHAT SON OF LATE NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A MAROOR HOUSE, POST BELVE KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE ) And:
1. T SUMANGALA DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A PRAJAPITHA BRAHMAKUMARI ISHWARIYA VISHWA VIDYALAYA GANGADARESHWARA TEMPLE COMPOUND HARAPANAHALLI POST DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583 131.
2. SMT. SAROJINI WIFE OF LATE T. SACHIDANANDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
3. BALACHANDRA SON OF LATE T. SACHIDANANDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. PURNACHANDRA RAO SON OF LATE T. SACHIDANANDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 R/A MAROOR HOUSE POST BELVE, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.
5. SMT T. SANDHYA WIFE OF LATE T. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A ADVAITA VANAM, KODIYALBAIL HOUSE KUTRUPADY VILLAGE KADABA POST, PUTTUR TALUK D.K – 574 221.
6 . SMT. T. SHARANYA DAUGHTER OF LATE T. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHRINIDHI, PADUPANAMBUR VILLAGE HALEYANGADY POST MANGALORE – 574 146.
7. VARUN SON OF LATE T. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A ADVAITA VANAM KODIYALBAIL HOUSE KUTRUPADY VILLAGE KADABA POST, PUTTUR TLAUK D.K – 574 221.
8. T. SATYAPRASAD BHAT SON OF LATE T. NARAYANA BHAT R/A HALLEKODI BAILU KODIYALBAIL HOUSE KUTRUPADY VILLAGE KADABA POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K – 574 221.
9. SMT. RATHNAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE T. NARAYANA BHAT R/A BRAHMHAKUMARIS HEBRI KARKALA TALUK KELAPETE – 574 104.
10. SMT T. SEETHALAKSHMI WIFE OF JAYANTHA R/A OM SHANTHI NETRHAVATHI COMPOUND MUNNUR POST MANGALORE – 575 017.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R8 & R10;
R5 AND R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED ON IA NO. 5013/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE PUTTUR, D.K DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER SEC.5 OF LIMITATION ACT., FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2016 PASSED IN FDP NO. 17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment The learned counsel for the appellant files a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal stating that the subject matter of the dispute has been settled out of the Court between the parties.
The memo is taken on record.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- Judge SA Ct:sr