SRI. M. RAMAPPA v. SRI. CHANDRAKANTH N HIREMATH
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2025-06-17. SRI. M. RAMAPPA v. SRI. CHANDRAKANTH N HIREMATH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - RFA No. 1515 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1515 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. RAMAPPA S/O OF LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT # 35, RD 3 CROSS ROAD, L. RAMAKRISHNAIAH LAYOUT, MALAGALU, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 091. 2. SRI. MAHESHKUMAR. A. L. SON OF M. LAXMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT ANEPALYA, K. GOLLAHALLI POST, KEMGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KARNATAKA - 560 060. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUDHA. S. N. , ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI. CHANDRAKANTH N. HIREMATH S/O OF LATE N. R. HIREMATH, AND RESIDING AT # 1209, ND ND 2 MAIN ROAD, 2 CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 2. KRISHNAMURTHY. H. R. S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, - 2 - RFA No. 1515 of 2017 3. SMT. LATHA W/O OF KRISHNAMURTHY. H. R.
, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 ND 3 ARE TH RESIDING AT 138A, 7 CROSS, FF LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058. 4. SMT M. SUMATI WIFE OF R. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 58/1, TH 4 MAIN, TELECOM LAYOUT, PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 5. DR. SHANKAR D. DESAI SON OF D. N. DESAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT HIGI, ST KHB COLONY, 1 STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. M. PRASHANTH. , ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR. , ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. V. PRAKASH. , ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & 3; SRI. B. RANGASWAMY IYENGAR. , ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - RFA No. 1515 of 2017 ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 16. 06. 2025. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the appellants, the appeal was ordered to be listed on 17. 06. 2025. The appeal is listed today for appearance of counsel for the appellants. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellants are not represented. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No. : 1 Sl No. : 35
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.