IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR M.F.A.NO.7590 of 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN 1. SMT. JAYAMMA WIFE OF LATE K. S. VISWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 107.
2. SRI. K. V. SUNDERESHA SON OF LATE K. S. VISWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 107.
3. SRI. K. V. RAJESH SON OF LATE K. S. VISWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 107.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND 1. SRI. K. P. NAGARAJU SON OF LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAZAAR ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562 106.
2. SRI. SIDDAVEERAPPA @ BABU SON OF LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAZAAR ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562 106.
3. SRI. RUDRAMURTHY SON OF LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAZAAR ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562 106.
4. SMT. JOTHI DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTAIAH, WIFE OF DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUBBI TOWN, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-572 216.
5. SRI. K. V. NARAYANASETTY SON OF LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 107.
6. SRI. K.V. SRINIVAS SON OF VENKATARAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 107.
... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.11.09.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A. NO.29/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND XV MACT, & JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Appellants’ counsel is absent. Even on 28.02.2019 he was absent. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting this appeal.
Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SD/- JUDGE bkp