Karnataka High Court

RFA/1204/2021 of L . THULASI Vs ANJAN KARUNAKARAN @ K DHANASHEKARAN on 19 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

CNR: KAHC010393472021 NC: 2026:KHC:44776 RFA No. 1204 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2021 (EJE) BETWEEN: 1. L . THULASI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LATE P.

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2021 (EJE)

BETWEEN:

1.

L . THULASI,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

D/O LATE P. LAKSHMAN,

W/O GANDIBAN,

2.

L. BALASUNDARAM,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

S/O LATE P LAKSHMAN,

3.

L. KALAIVANI,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

D/O LATE P. LAKSHMAN,

4.

L. SRIDHAR,

S/O LATE P. LAKSHMAN,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

NO.1575, 2ND CROSS,

NAGAPPA BLOCK,

BENGALURU - 560 021.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. CHAITHRA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. C.N. SATYANARAYANA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ANJAN KARUNAKARAN @

K. DHANASHEKARAN,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

S/O LATE KARUNAKARAN,

Digitally

signed by

REKHA R

Location:

High Court of

Karnataka

HC-KAR

RESIDING AT:

SECOND FLOOR NO.373,

100 FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 008.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.07.2021

PASSED IN OS.NO.26577/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORAL JUDGMENT

The daily order sheet of the appeal depicts that the appellants, on one or other grounds, are seeking time to advance arguments.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2021, whereby the Trial Court has directed the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of Judgment and Decree.

HC-KAR

3. The appeal though filed on 21.10.2021, the same is pending from five years.

4. Today, learned counsel Ms.Chaitra, appearing on behalf of Sri.C.N.Satyanarayana Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the appellants are demanding 'No Objection Vakalath' to engage other counsel.

5. Appellant No.2 - L.Balasundaram, is present before the Court.

6. The conduct of the appellants show that, they are not interested in prosecuting the appeal and are only interested in dragging on the matter to avoid the Bench and nothing more.

7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead