IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 417 OF 2017 (SP) Between:
1. SMT. KATHIZA WIFE OF LATE V ABUBAKKAR, AGE 52 YEARS.
2. SRI ABDUL RAHIMAN SON OF MR ABDUL KHADER BROTHER OF LATE V ABUBAKKAR AGE 75 YEARS AGED 75 YEARS.
3. SRI IBRAHIM SON OF MR ABDUL KHADER BROTHER OF LATE V ABUBAKKAR AGE 71 YEARS.
4. SMT HASABANNA WIFE OF MR ABDUL KHADER SISTER OF LATE V. ABUBAKKAR AGE 81 YEARS.
5. SMT ALIYAMMA SON OF MR ABDUL KHADER SISTER OF LATE V. ABUBAKKAR AGE 81 YEARS R/AT MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE - 575 021.
6. SMT HALEEMAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE AVAMMA AGE 58 YEARS.
7. SMT NAFEESA DAUGHTER OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 56 YEARS.
8. SMT JUBAIDA DAUGHTER OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 54 YEARS.
9. SMT PUTHU DAUGHTER OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 50 YEARS.
10. SMT ASHIYA DAUGHTER OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 47 YEARS.
11. SRI MOHAMMAD SON OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 45 YEARS.
12. SRI IBRAHIM SON OF LATE AVAMMA AGE : 43 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO. 6 TO 12 R/AT VALAOORU UMMARGADY HOUSE, THUMBE VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 143.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE (ABSNET)) And:
SMT. AISAMMA WIFE OF SRI SHABI BEARY AGE: 53 YEARS R/AT JAMADIGUDDE TALAPADY BANTWAL MUDA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 219.
... RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2016 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 05/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BANTWAL, D.K., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2010 PASSED IN OS. NO. 03/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BANTWAL. D.K.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellants. This Court on 19.07.2019 had adjourned the appeal granting two weeks time for compliance with the office objections subject to the condition that the appeal would be listed for dismissal if there is failure to comply with the office objections. Despite this preemptory order, the office objections have not been complied with. It is obvious that the concerned is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for default.
Sd/- Judge SA Ct:sr