Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramakka vs Nanjappa on 16 September, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5322 OF 2012 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Ramakka,
W/o. Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Smt. Chinnamma,
W/o. Sri. Srinivas,
Aged about 38 years,
3. Srinivas,
S/o. Sri. Nanjappa
Aged about 36 years,
4. Sri. Lakshmikath
S/o. Sri. Nanjappa,
Aged about 34 years,
5. Smt. Dhanalakshmi,
W/o. Sri. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 32 years,
6. Ravikumar,
S/o. Sri Nanjappa,
Aged about 30 years,
All are R/at
M/s. Lakshmikanth Nursery
Garden, No.17, 4th Cross,
2
Maruthi Nagar, Madivala
Bengaluru-560068.
...Appellants
(By Sri. P.L.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for
Sri. G.Manivannan, Advocate)
AND:
1. Nanjappa
S/o. Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.85/1-B
M/s. Lakshmikanth Nursery
Garden, 4th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar, Madivala
Bengaluru-560068.
2. Smt. Shakunthala,
Father's Name not known,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.85/1-B
M/s. Lakshmikanth Nursery
Garden, 4th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar, Madivala
Bengaluru-560068.
3. Benard D'souza
S/o. Late Lawrence D'souza
Aged about 57 years,
4. Smt. B.P.Prera,
W/o. Benard D'souza
Aged about 55 years,
3 & 4 are residing at No.22
4th Cross, Maruthi Nagar,
Madivala, Bengaluru-560068.
5. Smt. A.Y.Madhu,
W/o. Late Sri. Ravindra,
3
Aged about 46 years,
R/at Neralur Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
6. Kum. N.Sudha,
D/o. Nanjappa,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.85/1-B
M/s. Lakshmikanth Nursery
Garden, 4th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar, Madivala,
Bengaluru-560068.
... Respondents
(Sri. K.H.Ramu, Advocate for R1 & R2,
Vide order dated 17.7.2019
Service i.r.o. R3 to R6 H/s.)
This MFA is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the
CPC., against the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the I
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in
Mis.No.451 of 2009 and etc.
This MFA coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The office has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal. The impugned order shows that it was an order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC. This order is not appealable. Appellant's 4 counsel prays for time. This appeal is pending since the year 2012. No ground to adjourn. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMV/-