RAJENDRA J.HINDUJA v. N.S.NAGABHUSHANA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 OF 2010 (SP) BETWEEN:
1. RAJENDRA J.HINDUJA, S/O JHAMANDAS H.HINDUJA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. MADANLAL J.HINDUJA, S/O JHAMANDAS H.HINDUJA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. DINESH J.HINDUJA, S/O JHAMANDAS H.HINDUJA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
4. VIVEK M.HINDUJA, S/O MADANLAL H.HINDUJA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL PLAINTIFFS R/AT 211, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, BANGALORE - 560 006. (BY SRI. G. S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A4;) …APPELLANTS ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7371 RFA No. 1388 of 2010 AND:
N.S.NAGABHUSHANA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS A. N. BHANUBHUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ON RECORD AS DEFENDANT NO.2. B. N. RAVI BHUSAN, S/O LATE N. S. NAGABHUSHANA, R/AT BEL QUARTERS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. C. N. BALAJI, S/O LATE N.S. NAGABHUSHANA, C/O N.BHANUBHUSAN, 125/12, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. D. SMT. KALPANA, D/O LATE N.S. NAGABHUSANA, C/O N. BHANUBHUSAN, 125/12, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
N. BHANUBHUSHAN, S/O DEFENDANT NO.1, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING IN 125/12, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R PREM KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A,B & D); SRI. T.K. LAKSHMISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2012; R1(A) AND R2 ARE THE SAME PARTIES) - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7371 RFA No. 1388 of 2010 THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W, O-41, R-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.7682/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has filed a memo stating that appellants do not want to prosecute the above appeal and therefore, they may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The memo is signed by appellant Nos.1 to 4.
Operative part
2. Therefore, the memo is accepted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Registry to refund the Court fees in favour of appellant No.1 as prayed, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE PTM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
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.