IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.2515/2006 BETWEEN:
SMT.HUCHAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs 1. SMT. S M MARIYMMA @ PRAMILA D/O LATE HUCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SMT. S M SUSHEELA D/O LATE HUCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ADVOCATE.
3. SMT. S M MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE HUCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK ALL ARE R/O ANEVERAPPANAKERI 3RD CROSS, GANDHI BAZAR SHIMOGA CITY – 585 323.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI T GURUDEV, ADVOCATE – ABSENT) AND:
1. H S VENKATESH S/O H V SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED V.I.S. LTD., EMPLOYEE, R/O HOUSE No.G-50, NEW TOWN BHADRAVATHI – 577 302.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:21.4.2006 PASSED IN R.A.No.108/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.10.2001 PASSED IN OS No.293/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), SHIMOGA.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Counsel for appellants absent. No representation.
2. Considering the age and stage of the case, it appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the case. Regard being had to the fact that the matter is of the year 2006 in terms of this appeal, is of the year 2001 in terms of Regular Appeal No.108/2001 and of the year 1994 in terms of the original suit in O.S.No.293/1994. The absence of the appellants’ counsel does not deserve consideration. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE