IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 2294 of 2017 Between:
1. SMT MUNIYAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT JAYAMMA WIFE OF KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABUT 53 YEARS.
3. SRI NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT TAMAKA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK.
4. SMT. VIJAYAMMA WIFE OF ERAPPA, R/AT GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK.
5. SMT ERAMMA WIFE OF RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NAKKANAHALLI VILLAE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK.
6. SMT. SUMITHRAMMA WIFE OF SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK.
7. SMT VINODHA DAUGHTER OF MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT TAMAKA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. P. SOMASHEKARAIAH., ADVOCATE (ABSNET)) And:
1. SMT AKKAYAMMA WIFE OF GOVINDAPPA, DAUGHTER OF CHANNAKUL ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT TAMAKA VILALGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.
AND ALSO AT 2713, GANDHI NAGARA BANGARPET.
2. A N KUMAR RAJU SON OF A. N. NARAYANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.164 20TH MAIN J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE BANGALORE – 560 078.
3. SRI VENKATESHAPPA SON OF CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA R/AT TAMAKA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 71/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMTN AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2016 PASSED IN OS. NO. 94/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KOLAR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellants. This Court on 22.08.2019 had adjourned the appeal granting three 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 peremptory 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