High Court Karnataka High Court

O K Krishna Murthy vs K Shiva Kumar on 27 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
O K Krishna Murthy vs K Shiva Kumar on 27 August, 2009
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
%"':j

1N THE} HIGH CQURT' 09* KARNATAKA AT sArg:g;;:;c2*£:%' ~ V.

DATED THIS THE 22% DAY 0? AuGUsf:f'i2c:Q§9:'   -T "

BEFORE 

THE HGNELE MR. wsrlcg Eigfié.KESE;VA1{A'?£Ai§A¥';'xf§¥A€_ 

R.S.A.NCr7859z
BEYWEEN: V -  

1 0 K KRISHNA MEERTE-EY,-'*'* . " 

Sm OLETY I{O{}5E'i:¥)Al§AI§f§AiA}£» 
SiNCiE DEAD BY HiS'LRS   ~ '

(2%) C.R.RAJES£-~£WAF'I _ _  -  *
W/O LA'f'I:'i'V. R}'§Iv¥,%\RAT1*{NAIAHA-- SETTY
R/AT «gm: Gafiapm C.OMP£.--EX A
KALIKAMBA -s*£~';i2EEr:fn,.  =  
 10  % '

(3) L} 1«:._;:c3ij""V:¢£3;m%g§»q;%§iA§i 7
AGED AES€)E}*Ef'50'3.'__F:'£§ 
5,10 LATE; 'cs 3: .KR:s-mamumay

{:2} 5 is: K salmaygsa Emu
  3~§.;._{}_ELTi ABoU?------4~8' ms
35;: LATE 0 K KRISHNAMEMMY

 _{£:{';: iF§AE§fAVE§iATHMA

.  AGEE1i'j_ABOU'i' 42 YRS
 ggic: -MTE 0 K KRISHNA MSRTHY

 n2T S'ai% VENKATA M{§NIRA'¥'HNAPv1MA

 "~._§:'VjO LATE CLK.KR1SHNA MEERTHY

 '  ,§'gGEI} ABGEET 75 YRS

QLL ARE RJAT' SZEZAAR EGAD
CEHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN .. APPELLANTS

{B}; Sfvfi'. G Ri%Mf§DE\/Z, Amt)



AND :

1 K smva KUMAR
S/O KRISHNA SWAMY SHE-'F'TY
mzmu AGED ABOUT 55 sires;  
MERCHANT : * ._  -3    ~
R/AT VALASAN NA STREET E§LANEf)':W'ARPE:*P_ ' '  '
CHIKKABALLPUR'     "

2 M LAKSHMANA SHASTREQ'
DEAD BY' H38 :33 

2(A) MOH&N sHARMA--«.sjQ LA1<:sHis1AvNA%sHA3mY
AGED MAJOR HINDE} % f   ' 
§'LANNING GFFICER P£..A'r:I§£I%N ' "'sB:i:f;"i't3N
MULTISYQREED::BUIL};31N{}';_ ' .._ ' 

DR AMr3E1;gi§éAVR 'R-015,33 BA_NG~A1}Oi'€E 1

2(3) SMT A.NNiA::%URA.N5M1y5.A" 
QffQ.MC+HAF£:::_.SHARMA * 
HiNDU"§?L;A_N1'I.IN{} C*,F'FI_CE3R
§2LA:~zr~2'1NGs;-*3c'?.:O--N_ ~ '
MU msT0Ri'E::;. Bi.-E_E};;£}'£NG
132 A:;eBED'KAR..R0;%;D

_-13ANGAL_C}¥R*;.AMBE§)KAR ROAD,

 A.  BANSALORE 1  RESi3GN{}E?~ETS

,   '~53? SRIYUTHS R S PR2§S;§NNA EQEMAR 3:: REUBEN JACGB,
  Emkfgs ;

THIS RS9; IS FILED LUS. 180 0367' CPS AGAINST THE
JEEDGEMENT 8:, BECREE BATED: 2E§.}.,2G{}?" PASSES IN"

/1

W



3
RJLNO. 172/ 200:2 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDLSESSIONS
JUDGE 3:. PREsm1NG OFFICER, FAST' TRACK COUR?'
Nav, CHICKBALLAPUR, IDISMISSENG THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING 'THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DATED:
2.9.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO. 237/ zgsg ON 'r:;I:::_F1_LE
012* THE PRLCIVIL JUDGE (.JR.mL) &«'."-J_Ri¥*'x':,
CHICKBALLAPUR.   u ;. 

'FI-HS R.S.A. COMENG ON FOR ADn;1iss1.r§';$zVVf;'E§§.is 433?; ., 
'THE COURT DELIVERED THE FoLm~1&I£NG--'?  ' ' .  

J U D G M E   ~ V V
It is noticed that right' thé"datfi_ Gfjthis " L'
appeal, the ieamaeci cognsel  fof' agfwpeilaxats

has remained absent "b:*1   the appeal

had been 2j*s:e;z% fQI5 aci.11{ii$sir2;1-.

2. 'fI:e_V%ap;2x€al4V 1':_.f»,3i<}« iiitseen listed for admission for the

  f}.}."9.'-V':%"%L"§'«'.5."i;{:3;{V'g Qfi 6'. 6.2£_§:(_}'7.«'*'. Thereafizar, on severe} dates the

 'a,:§5p€a;j" iistacti for admission. (311 3:10:36 0:" thase

c§¢zji.g s;é  counsei appearing far the appellants

 ._was pzfésgefit. in spite 01' it, the Ccmlrt adjeurned the

";I1at*£:2I*. Even tadajy, there is 110 repz*e$e:1tat.ion on

'  1:§§}:ha1f of the appefiantsk This shows that the appefiamts

 "--« E;.4§'c
 »  moi diiigem in prosecuting this appeal. Leaimed



caunsei fer the respondent submitted that the

appellants _/ defendants have v01um’:ari1y delivered {ha

possession of the suit scheduie property

pmsuant to the decree passed by the ca:$:1¥:£rts.AT.V.:bt;§'{():%§’_{T

From this, it is clear {hat thé’ “a;3p£:.}l3;1:3iA$-” »«g;f€-.i’z;1-:§’:&

interested in prosecuting this ap§6_ai’;.V_A’

3. ‘i’her¢:£o*r$, Vdigfifiissed far n0n~
pf(}Sf3CL1fiQ;”i; ‘ V ‘
j fi” JUDGE