HARIKRISHNA Vs. KUPPUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment dtd. 4/1/2019 of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru City (CCH No.43) in O.S. No.8511/2015.

(2.) We have heard Shri. Prasad K.R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Chidananda. P, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is served and remained unrepresented and notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with vide order dtd. 24/4/2025.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants No.1 and 2 herein are the defendants No.2 and 3 before the Trial Court and that for point of production of documents, the partition suit was dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have the required documents in their possession and that the documents could not be produced before the Trial Court, the appellants were under the impression that the documents would be produced by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Though notice had been taken out to the respondents in this appeal, there is no appearance on their behalf.