IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2016 (MON) BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIYAMITHA, H.R. DIVISION, KUSHALNAGAR, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARATHCHANDRA R., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
M. VEERAPPAN SON OF LATE MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HULUGUNDA, HARANGI POST, KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234, SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1 SMT. AMARAVATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE M. VEERAPPAN.
2. VELUMURUGAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SON OF LATE M. VEERAPPAN.
3. RAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SON OF LATE M. VEERAPPAN.
4. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SON OF LATE M. VEERAPPAN.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF HULGUNDA VILLAGE, HARANGI POST, KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.
5. SMT. PARVATHI WIFE OF MADESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, P.O. CHITRAPALAYAM SAMUDRAM, SALEM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.
6. SMT. RAJESHWARI WIFE OF SRIRANGAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PERUMADURAI, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
8. THE SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 009.
9. KAVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA, KHB BUILDING, 9TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570 009.
10. THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION (SOUTH), MYSURU-570 024.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41, RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
***** THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The counsel for the appellant is absent. On the previous date also he was absent. It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-