SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SMT RACHI PUTTAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SMT SANNAMMA – Respondent
HRRP 16/2017



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

HRRP.No.16/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. RACHI PUTTAMMA

W/O LATE SHRI GOVINDAIAH

AGE 57 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO. 1975/L

NEW NO. 61/2, ASHOKAPURAM

MYSURU - 570 002.

& PETITIONER

(PARTY-IN-PERSON ABSENT)

AND:

1 .

SMT SANNAMMA

D/O LATE D PUTTASWAMY

AGE 62 YEARS

R/T NO 1960 (DOOR NO 1972)

NEW NO A 32/1 11TH CROSS,

ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE - 570001

2 .

SMT SAROJA

W/O SRI MAHADEVAIAH

D/O SRI GOVNDAIAH

AGE 47 YEARS

R/AT NO 30, SWEEPER COLONY

VIDYARANYAPURAM

MYSURU - 570008

3 .

SRI DINESHA

S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH

AGE 42 YEARS

4 .

SRI SRINIVASA

S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH

AGE 42 YEARS

5 .

SRI PRAKASHA

S/O LATE SRI GOVNDAIAH

AGE 38 YEARS

2

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT

NO. 1975/L (NEW NO 61/2)

ASHOKAPURAM MYSORE - 570001.

& RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021;

PETITION AGAINST R2 STANDS DISMISSED V/O DTD 20.09.2021;

V/O DTD: 05.06.2017, DEATH OF R4 & R5 HAVING NOT ABATED

ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR LR'S BEING ALREADY ON RECORD)

THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA

RENT ACT 1999, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

14.12.2016 PASSED IN R.R.NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII

ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT

JUDGE,

MYSURU,

DISMISSING

THE

REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND

DECREE DATED: 28.09.2015 PASSED IN HRC NO.1/13 ON THE

FILE OF THE PRL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU, ALLOWING

THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 27(2)(a) OR SEC.31(A) OF

KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999 AND ETC.,

THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo to

retire from the case. This Court in terms of the order dated

25.10.2021 had permitted him to retire and the petitioner

name was ordered to be shown in the cause-list.

2.

There is no representation for the petitioner.

3.

Hence, this petition is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/NM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top