IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M. PRITHVIRAJ SON OF LATE P MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.2011,SEEBAIAH ROAD, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.K. SRIKARA., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1. SMT. MANCHAMMA DAUGHTER OF SRI SIDDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA DAUGHTER OF SRI SIDDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. SR.ESHWAR SON OF SRI SIDDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
4. SMT BHAGYAMMA DAUGHTER OF SRI SIDDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.9, II CROSS, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 012.
5. SMT BHAGYA WIFE OF SR.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.535, III BLOCK,BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BELWADI VILLAGE AND POST, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU – 570 012.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX, MYSURU – 570 012.
7. THE TAHASILDAR EARLIER NEAR PREMIER STUDIO MYSURU MADIKERI ROAD MYSORE – 570 001.
NOW AT THE OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 012.
8. THE SHERISTHEDAR THE OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 012.
9. SRI RAMACHANDRA SON OF SRI KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.535, II BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BELWADI VILLAGE AND POST, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU – 570 012.
10. SMT JAYAMMA DAUGHTER OF SRI SIDDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.9, II CROSS, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSURU - 560 012.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 29.09.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO 188/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.22/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MYSURU.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment On 30.7.2019, three weeks’ time was granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to comply with the office objections subject to the condition that the appeal shall be listed for dismissal if the office objections are not complied with. Despite this order, the office objections have not been attended to. It is obvious that the concerned is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, the appeal is dismissed for default.
SD/- JUDGE nv Ct:sr