P THAMMAYANNA v. SRI RAMAREDDY
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2025-01-17. P THAMMAYANNA v. SRI RAMAREDDY. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - RFA No. 683 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: P. THAMMAYANNA BY HIS LR'S 1(a) SMT. MADAMMA, W/O LATE THAMMAIANNA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, TH RESIDING AT NO. 24, 8 CROSS, JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. 1(b) SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE THAMMAIANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, TH RESIDING AT NO. 24, 8 CROSS, JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. Digitally signed by 1(c) SMT. PRAMEELA THEJASKUMAR N W/O B. SRINIVASAN, Location: High Court of D/O LATE THAMMAIANNA, Karnataka AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 64, "ELZA ENCLAVE", CAUVERY NAGAR, VADDARAPALYA, AGRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 043. 1(d) KUMARI D/O LATE THAMMAIANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TH RESIDING AT NO. 24, 8 CROSS, - 2 - RFA No. 683 of 2017 JAKKASANDRA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B SRINIVAS.
, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI RAMAREDDY HINDU, MAJOR, MANAGING PARTNER, PADMANABHA BRICK WORKS, ULSOOR, BANGALURU. 2. M/S. PADMANABHA BRICK WORKS, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI K. BALAKRISHNA REDDY, HAVING ITS FACTORY AND OFFICE, AT KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. 3. M/S KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ASSET RE-CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT NO. 1, THIMMAIAH ROAD BANGALURU 52. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. M. NAGABUSHANA. , ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & 3) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - RFA No. 683 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 13. 01.
2025, on that day, when the matter is called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the appellants it was ordered to be listed on 17. 01. 2025. The appeal is listed today for appearance of counsel of 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 Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No. : 1 Sl No. : 15
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.