Suresh S/O Narasayya Pyati vs Saraswati W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy ... on 30 May, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suresh S/O Narasayya Pyati vs Saraswati W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy ... on 30 May, 2016

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                                   1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2016

                             BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200353 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Suresh S/o Narasayya Pyati
Age: 64 years,
Occupation: Business,
Resident of Basawanagar,
Sedam, Taluk: Sedam,
District: Kalaburgi - 585 222.
                                                  ... APPELLANT

(Shri Gururajrao Kakkeri, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Saraswati
       W/o Late Mallikarjun Reddy Patil,
       Age about 60 years,
       Occupation: Household,
       Resident of Basawanagar, Sedam,
       Taluk: Sedam, District: Kalaburgi - 585 222.

2.     Srinivas S/o Suresh Pyati
       Age: 25 years,
       Occupation: Household,
                                   2




      Resident of Basawanagar, Sedam,
      Taluk: Sedam,
      District: Kalaburgi - 585 222.
                                                  ... RESPONDENTS


      This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated
29.08.2012, passed in R.A.No.22/2011 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge at Sedam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
Judgement and Decree dated 03.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.3/2005
on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Sedam.

      This Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:

                           JUDGMENT

There is a delay of 1052 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are not tenable. Even on merits, it is noticed that the suit was one for permanent injunction restraining the present appellant - defendant from putting up a window in a common wall between the appellant's property and the respondents' property. 3

2. It is candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though such a window was put up pursuant to the judgment under appeal, the same has subsequently been demolished.

Therefore, even on merits, there is no case made out. Consequently, the application I.A.1/2015 is rejected. Hence, the appeal does not survive for consideration and is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court