IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2174 of 2011 (RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NAGANADODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DITRICT – 571 401.
... APPELLANT [BY SRI ANANDA K., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND:
1. SRI BOREGOWDA, S/O CHIKKABYLKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O NAGANADODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O DOLLEGOWDANA BOMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KARADAKERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK – 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. RAKSHITHA D.J., & VAIBHAVI, ADVs., FOR SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, ADV., FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2011 PASSED IN R.A.No.10/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) MADDUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2007 PASSED IN OS.No.18/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MADDUR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent even on the last date of hearing.
2. On perusal of the order sheet, it is noticed that the appellant’s counsel has not appeared before the Court regularly except on 13.09.2019 and obtained an adjournment for two weeks. Thereafter, remained absent. This Court passed peremptory order on 11.10.2019 while adjourning the case as under:
“Appellant’s counsel remained absent.
Respondents’ counsel is present.
However, a week’s time is granted to the appellant’s counsel to address the arguments, failing which, appeal will be dismissed for non-prosecution”.
3. In spite of adjourning the matter, the matter came up before this Court today in the first hour, the appellant’s counsel remained absent. This Court instructed the respondents’ counsel to make a phone call to the appellant’s counsel by giving phone number traced from the vakalath.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted when the case is taken up for the second time that she has intimated the appellant’s counsel through her mobile phone, but the appellant’s counsel remained absent, not appeared and argued the matter.
Hence, there is no other option for this Court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE PB