High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Seetharam Shet vs Sri K Ganapathi Nayak on 15 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Seetharam Shet vs Sri K Ganapathi Nayak on 15 December, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
R.S.A.No.1033g2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 
BEFORE A
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  .
Regular Second Agpeal  
BETWEEN:     _   

SR1 SEETHARAM SHE'?

AGE: ABOUT 53 YEARS

S /0 RAMABAl RAWAL SHE'?

DOOR NO.1389/ 1, BARK ROAD 

KAMBLA CROSS, MANNAGUDDA  V.  _
MANGALORE A 575 001.    _   ';.-APPELLANT

{BY SR1 AKESHAVA BEAT,  

AND:

SR} K.GANAPATH1«.NAYAKV:Q ' .,
S/O K.MANJUNAfrHA NAYAK' . "
AGE:ABOU'I' 60   '
SY£\EDICATI:L BANK A_ '
€-.3'i:{1aRVA }3RAN_C}I, SHIRVA. ..... .. .

*:}DU;P1;9S76 "$01   ..RESPONDENT

  *fS1SD* RISSA. AEESVVAFILED U/SE00 OF cpc AGAINST THE
J'f.IDG'MEN'.1' &.«."'-D133-CREE DATED 3.1.2007 PASSED IN

°*~=P.A.No.7.7/2004  '1'HE FILE 0:: THE 11 ADDL. -CIVIL JUDGE

(SR.DN.),"1\/£A}\fGAI,C)R£+3. DISMESE-3lNG THE APPEAL AND

--. A.A'_;'-..r:,Q'rA1F1RM1NQ ':.'mE JUDG.1V1EN'1' AND DEGREE DATED
4 _"1.A*;1_.2A00:.§, PASSED EN ()S.N().71/98 ON THE FILE OF THE) 111
 " A_D~D_L_ Clvgl, JUDGE {JR.DN.}, MANGALORE.

V"i'HlS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THES DAY. THE

A CQ1§.R7E' DELEVEREZD ma FOLLOWING:



R.S.A.NO.1033,{2007

J U D G M E N T

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has V-filed
a memo in Court today which reads as follows:

“The aldove Appeal is filed cl1aller1gl:*ig;t_::

Judgement & Decree of the Cu;il””J:zdge A
Mangalore dated 14.1.2004 in “Q.s.f.j_No’.71»/98:”qé:7’f,”l’T1.n_’

affirmed by the 2″” Additio:ial__.Civil.Jarigee.'(‘$t;D1fl} 3
Mangalore in RA. 77/2004 3.1 .2oo7f;” T –l3y
aforesaid Judgement”, zine T rial

the suit, declaring IthatuResponfileintflits: lllile tenant of
Schedule «A-apremyl-SeS’:’_.. . _.

At preserfi, lllauslmexpired long

back Ll)i’i?lOL£.l5:.:i?.ecZll:):l%§fig legallieirs behind him.
He usn–rac;r:~’£e:z:’ Exilyllfiisdeainh. and no known
Legal RepI*e4_ser1vtatives a.1f:e;.lejl behind him.
yfjlevrzee, theAAal9oUe:Appeal does not survive for
fiVconVs’irie}9al1Lony_and it may kindly be disposed off as

ifgfructuous and unnecessary.”

In’–..__vie_fw’ above memo, the appeal stands

” H of having become infructuous.

[siai/«At.a

disposed of.

sea/-=
JUDGE