Karnataka High Court
Arun S/O Mahjadev Sathe vs Hasansab S/O Allasab Pendari on 4 September, 2013
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5692/2013( SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE)
BETWEEN
ARUN S/O MAHJADEV SATHE
DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A) SAROJA, W/O ARUN SATHE
AGED 62 YRS., OCC: RETD.
R/O SAPTAPUR, 8TH CROSS
DHARWAD 580 001.
1B) RESHMA, D/O ARUN SATHE,
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SAPTAPUR 8TH CROSS,
DHARWAD 580 001.
.. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADV. FOR SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S.
HEGDE)
AND:
1. HASANSAB, S/O ALLASAB PENDARI
AGE 60 YRS., OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. HUSENSAB, S/O ALLASAB PENDARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2A) ASHABEE, W/O HUSENSAB PENDARI
AGE 52 YRS., OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
2B)) IQBAL S/O HUSENSAB PENDARI
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2C) RASHEEDABEGUM,
W/O KALILAHAMAD TEENWALE,
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2D) JAREENABEGUM SHAMEERAHAMED
GABBUR, AGE 34 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2E) ABDUL, S/O HUSENSAB PENDARI
AGE 30 YRS, OC: AGRICLUTURE
2F) BASHEERAHMED, S/O HUSENSAB PENDARI
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2G) RAMEEJABEGUM, D/O HUSENSAB PENDARI
AGE 25 YRS., OCC: HOSUEHOLD
ALL ARE R/O SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD 580 001.
.. RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.4.2009 PASED IN
R.A.NO.78/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN)
DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 01/04/2004 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.577/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN)
AND PRL. JMFC DHARAWD PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo on 03/09/2013 praying to dismiss this appeal as withdrawn for the reason that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the same.
Said memo is taken on record. The second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of appeal being dismissed as withdrawn, the appellant is entitled for refund of court fee as admissible under the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv