IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.205 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Smt. K. Rajeshwari W/o B. Narasimhareddy & D/o N. Krishna Reddy (wrongly mentioned in I.A. No’s B. Muniswamy Reddy) Aged about 55 years R/a No.114, New No.112/17 9th Cross, Wilson Garden Bangalore – 560 027.
(By Sri A.C. D’Souza, Advocate - Absent) AND:
1. Nanjundappa, S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 66 years Residing at No.114, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore – 560 027.
.. APPELLANT 2. N. Krishna Reddy S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 61 years Residing at No.114, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore – 560 027.
3. K. Shankar S/o N. Krishna Reddy Aged about 36 years Residing at Opp. Church, Chowdahalli, Dommasandra, Bangalore (D)562125 4. Narasimhappa S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 89 years Residing at Roopena Agrahara Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560068.
5. Ramappa S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 86 years Residing at Roopena Agrahara Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560068.
6. Narayana S/o Narasimhaiah Aged about 83 years Residing at Roopena Agrahara Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560068.
7. N. Krishna Reddy S/o late Narasimhaiah Aged about 75 years Residing at No.114, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore – 560 027.
(By Sri Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for R1;
.. RESPONDENTS R2, R5, R6, R7 & R3 served and unrepresented Vide Order dt 22.10.2019, appeal against R4 stands dismissed) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to set aside the Order passed in FDP.83/2004 dated 19.12.2015 in drawing the final decree on the file of the XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City and remand the matter etc.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for orders along with I.A. Nos.1/16 and 2/16 this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again in the second round. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, in spite of granting sufficient opportunities, the learned counsel for the appellant has neither appeared nor proceeded further in this matter.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that from 09.01.2019, on all the dates of hearing, the appellant has remained absent. As such, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*