High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Venaktaswamy S/O Late … vs Sri Chandrappa S/O Lae Muniswamy on 26 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Venaktaswamy S/O Late … vs Sri Chandrappa S/O Lae Muniswamy on 26 May, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M.F'.A.N0.10€586f'200'?

SR1 GANESH

$10 RAMAEAH

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

12,/AT N0188, am cgoss
SAJNAYNAGAR, MARATHAHALLI
BANGALC)RE~--5§8 937   ._

SR1 SHAMANNA

3/0 LATE NANJAPPA

AGED A801}? 71 muss

R/AT NCL436  
CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE 1205:) '

OPE'; GQVERNMENT PRIMARY---S~G'1=§OOL
MARATHAHALLI V _    .. . 
8ANGAL,ORE~--S6O 037  - ~

SR1 ANNAYAPPA @ AN.?€£i}Ai}i

sgo LATE Ns~.mAPE>A;; _,    
AGED ABo:1;T*g:a~'YEA13s=;_'  * 
R/AT NQ.'24':3,'?~*rE~:c.§e'0;s$    »
sAn$JAY1»:A<3;_aR " _   
EANr.;:na.1.Q}§3a~5€;Q_Q3?._'  ' '

SR11.VNAF<AYAN.%"-.»  ' V.  '
S/C3 'LATE NANJA'*méA~..   
AGED ;amU'r':ro "'1°'§;A_R':§._ '
R/AT 3R1?~.CROSS_ '

1:a:e::~zIL:~:D (3GV?."PRiI§?IAEéY SCHOOL

 V. '_  £vé§AfR_A'§'HAHALL1 . .. ..... .. .
 _ "BAN.GA;;<:sRE~560 037

"  sa:sgm;A%M%%
' .3/OEATE vmxsnmzaa

H1NDU','AGED MAJQR

"""E€/A.'"2'1'w'€}«--."54€9,'1'CH CGLLEGE ROAD

1%/i£\E€A.'I'HAHALLI

 n T BA1~1.GAL{2OC_)7

SEE R NAGARAJ
810 N K RADHAKRESHNA 3212:9132'
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

RXAT N012, HAL 2"" STAGE
ENEJIRANAGAR

BANGALORE660 008   -

MR AUSTIN ROACH

3/0 9 A ROACH

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 
R/A'? M01212, HAL 2m: s*rA fvL.4§I1'£.R--OAD
KASTi-RILRINAGA R," .EAS'i'= .09' NGEF
BANGAL{}RE+560._OIx$ ' '

V:s£a;1'1*,  I'AJ3'<.3UT_ :37 YEARS
" V _R;'ATv«No~;?_;m,'1RAJU*s COLONY
._ "Y_EM'LUR..._PoST
A BANGALQRE-560 037

sé;..1~i MAHENDRA REDDY
8/0 A NARAYANA REDDY

" AGEEJ ABOUT 50 YEARS

H = _Rf,A'I' No.75, MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE

 BANGALORE660 037

MA RATHAHALLI POST
. .RESPOI€D ERTS

(BY SR1 S.SHIVAf'-IANDA FOR M/S. LAW ASSOCIATES,
ADVOCATES FOR R» 10 825 R-1 1')



N 8" '3'"

THIS MFA IS man UNDER ORDER xm: RULE Mr} <39.
CPC TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED I3.€)6.2{§07 PA$§§E_{"').V 
ONI.A.1'~3'G.i9 IN O.S.NG.846I;'i§§8 ON Tm: i"?'iLE GP' '1"§i~£:-- §_s:'»'___if S ._ 
ADDETEONAL CITY cmz, JUDGE AT BANGALORE Ie}?;;.i--I,::<:f1'1':~¢_:;--«t  ~

THE SAN) APPLiCAT'1(}N MQD ALLOW THE ABOVE AP'EfEAL"B'Y

GRANTENG THE', RELIEF SOUGHT FORQNDER5£}25i;'I'~?(}';£§'=IN'_ 
FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT {PL.AIN'I'EFF}« «_A.ND.y  ¢'_I'HVE* 

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON E2312 e§;’~?:,_”1’ir~I%”§;; u

COURT EIELEVEEQED THE FOLLOWiN§§:~.,V’
JUDGH§fi§g
Lealned counsel téfétggfiblaéent Nos. 30

& 11 has filed agfiemo reads as

follows: V V V V _ V _ V
F ‘ié filed. fthallenging the
Ordé,-‘rs on O.~S’.No.846I of 1998
passecztfiyt%theV.:éc§m§:a{i8:?: Additioncd City cam:
Jugige, B€t.*zga¥rJfe. the Appellant herein
a }i}fe:2m.«’before the lower court on
.A ctnd withdrew thé suit itself; hence
thgeétt ” does not survive for
by this I-:Ion’b£e Court. In the
the Respsndents respectfuily

.. At pmfy this Humble Cawt may be pleased to

t Véisjaose of the above Appeal, in the interest of

and equity.’
W/A

M. F.A.Nc:s. 1968612007

In View at” the above, the appeal does net su:’x:iv§[‘~._v

for consideratisn. Acccsrdingly, the appeal is ~

as having become infrucizueus.

3111/-