IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA R.S.A No.970/2017 (PAR) BETWEEN:
MARANA SHETTY AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY R/AT PARADI HOUSE PUTHIGE VILLAGE POST SAMPIGE MANGALORE TALUK D.K. – 575 001 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: SANDEEP KATTI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
1. JAGADEESH SHETTY AGED 44 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY 2. PREMA SHETTY AGED 61 YEARS D/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY 3. VIJAYA SHETTY AGED 56 YEARS D/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY 18-J, SHIVAJI NAGAR GOVANDI MUMBAI – 400 043 4. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY HOTEL DURGA PRASAD 146, A TO Z, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE G.K.MARG, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI – 400 013 5. AMITHA SHETTY AGED 41 YEARS D/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY W/O DOMBA SHETTY BAKYARKODI HOUSE KADANDALE VILLAGE VIA MOODBIDARI MANGALORE TALUK D.K. – 575 001 6. ASHA S SHETTY AGED 37 YEARS D/O LATE DODDAYYA SHETTY AND W/O SHANKAR SHETTY FLAT NO.C R NO.2 SHEETHAL PAWAN SHEETAL NAGAR MIRA ROAD EAST THANE – 401 107 7. ASHOK SHETTY AGED 42 YEARS 8. SATISH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 9. SHAKILA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 10. SANDEEP SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 11. SHARATH SHETTY AGED 30 YEARS 12. RAJESH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2, 7 TO 12 R/A PARADI HOUSE PUTHIGE VILLAGE POST SAMPIGE MANGALORE TALUK D.K. – 575 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: K.C. ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) ***** THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.65/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.20/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM., KARKALA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal was filed on 28.4.2017. On 14.9.2017 despite there being no representation for the appellant, this Court granted time till 13.10.2017 to comply with the office objections, failing which, to list the matter on 23.10.2017 i.e. today, to ascertain as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Once again there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.
2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections and for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.