✦ Karnataka High Court

Y. RUDRESH v. D GROUP EMPLOYEES (REGD)

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Judgment

(BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA R, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND:

#1. D GROUP EMPLOYEES (REGD) II FLOOR M .S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

#2. ASHOK KUMAR S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

#3. VASANTH KUMAR S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

#4. VARUN KUMAR S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52391 RFA No.874/2020

#5. PRASHANTH S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. ABOVE ALL ARE R/AT GIDDA KONENAHALLI YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE.

#6. SMT. NAGAMBIKA W/O SRINIVASA MURTHY D/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.14/102, GANDHINAGAR YELAHANKA, BANGALORE.

#7. NARAYANA SWAMY @ MAREGOWDA S/O LAKSHMI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

#8. ANANTHA KUMAR S/O LAKSHMI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT GIDDA KONENAHALLI YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-91.

#9. SMT. PADMAJA D/O LAKSHMI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HEGGADEVANAPURA MADANAYAKANAHALLI POST DASANUPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

#10. SHARATH KUMAR S/O T. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

#11. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O T. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52391 RFA No.874/2020

#12. ANJANADEVI D/O T. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

#13. GANGA LAKSHMAMMA D/O T. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

#14. UMADEVI D/O T. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

#15. MOHAN KUMAR S/O T. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

#16. T. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

#17. LAKSHMI S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

#18. T. KEMPANNA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

#19. T. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

#20. T. BYREGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RES. NO.10 AND 20 ARE R/AT GIDADA KONENAHALLI YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52391 RFA No.874/2020

#21. SMT. MUBEENA KOUSER W/O SRI. MIRZA SAIFUDDIN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

#22. SMT. ABEEDA BEGUM D/O LATE MIRZA KHALIDULLA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.21 AND 22 ARE R/AT. NO.15TH CROSS, KEMPAIAH BLOCK J.C. NAGAR, BANGALORE.

#23. H.K. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KENGER GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.2481/A 'D' GROUP LAYOUT GIDADA KONENAHALLI VISVESWARAIAH LAYOUT 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.

#24. E. VENKATARATHNAM S/O LATE E. NAGAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.29, OPP I.E.W 8TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2016 PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5597/2011 BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52391 RFA No.874/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT There is no representation for the appellant when the matter is called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session.

#2. Order dated 25.09.2024 reads as under:" "Two weeks time is granted to do the needful on payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru."

#3. Neither the office objections are complied for the 8th time nor is cost paid. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

#4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 96.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. RFA No. 874 of 2020). ← Search more judgments