Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramachandra Wangekar vs Sri.Vilas Pandurang Bokil on 14 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
RSA NO.100192/2019 (EP)
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAMACHANDRA WANGEKAR
DECEASED BY LRS
1. SMT ANNAPOORNA W/O RAMACHANDRA WANGEKAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/AT H.NO.189, NARVEKAR GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI
2. SRI VISHWANATH S/O RAMACHANDRA WANGEKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/AT H.NO.189, NARVEKAR GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
TQ AND DISTBELAGAVI
3. SRI SAMEER S/O RAMACHANDRA WANGEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT H.NO.189, NARVEKAR GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI
.. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI,MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.VILAS PANDURANG BOKIL
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
R/AT NO.202, JAIDEEP APARTMENT,
NEAR BIG BAZAR, KHANAPUR ROAD,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI 590006
2
2. SOU VARSHA W/O PARASHURAM PATIL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT PLOT NO.02, INDRAYANI,
TEACHERS COLONY, VINAYAK NAGAR,
HINDALAGA ROAD, BELAGAVI
3. SOU RUPALI W/O SUHAS KANRALKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIE,
R/AT PLOT NO.40-41, SAINATH COLONY,
R.V.PAUSAKAR LAYOUT, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI
4. SOU POONAM W/O AJITKUMAR PATIL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT 602, BLUE BELL, NYATI MEADOWS,
KALYANI NAGAR, PUNE 411014. MAHARASTRA
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.P.BOLKI, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR C/R1)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2019
PASSED IN R.A.NO.272/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2018 PASSED IN E.P.NO.56/2003
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE I.A.NO.18 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC AND SECTION 74 READ
WITH ORDER XXI RULE 97 AND 98 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The party-in-person filed a memorandum of facts stating that he has already taken possession of the suit schedule property on 17.07.2019. The party-in- person has also submitted that execution petition has already been closed as fully satisfied on 15.10.2019. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants.
In view of the above said facts, the appeal does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-