IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A No. 1959 OF 2013 BETWEEN H.S. Ashoka S/o Shankarappa Aged about 43 years Agriculturist R/at Hadikere Village Amruthapura Hobli Tarikere Taluk Chikmangalore District-577228.
... Appellant (By Sri Manjunath .N.D.– Advocate - Absent) AND 1. H. M. Shankarappa S/o Late Marulasidappa Aged about 80 years Agriculturist R/at Hadikere Village Tarikere Taluk-577228 Chikmangalore District.
2. H. S. Prakash S/o Shankarappa Aged about 42 years Agriculturist R/at K. H. B. Colony M. G. Road, Tarikere Chikmangalore – 577228.
3. Basavarajappa S/o Late Marulasidappa Aged about 59 years 4. Shadaksharappa S/o Late Ujjinappa Aged about 40 years 5. Rajappa S/o Late Ujjinappa Aged about 35 years 6. Dhruvakumar S/o Late Ujjinappa Aged about 34 years 7. Smt. Gowramma W/o Late Jayanna Aged about 50 years 8. Vinodha D/o Late Jayanna Aged about 34 years Respondents 3 to 8 are residing at Hadikere Village Amruthapura Hobli Tarikere Taluk-577228 Chikmangalore District.
... Respondents (By Sri V.F. Kumbar – Advocate for R-3) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed in R.A. No. 60/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2012 passed in O.S.No. 143/2008 on the file of Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Tarikere.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT The suit is of the year 2008, which came to be decreed on 14.09.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the suit, defendants filed R.A.No.69/2012. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 31.08.2013 thus confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2008. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, defendant No.3 has preferred the present appeal as on 06.12.2013 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2008 which has been confirmed in R.A.No.72/2012.
2. When the matter is called out, the counsel for appellant – 3rd defendant remains absent. There is also no representation on his behalf. It appears that appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
I.A.No.1/2013 for stay, is dismissed as a consequence.
Sd/- JUDGE KS