IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 720 OF 2016 Between:
PUNITH KUMAR SON OF D.K.SHIVRAM @ SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DANTARAMAKKI, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. G. KUMARA., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) And:
1. D. R. RANGEGOWDA SON OF LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
2. D.R. NAGARAJ SON OF LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
3. D.R. CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
4. D.K. SHIVARAM @ SHIVANNA SON OF LATE D.P. KENCHAMARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
5. D.K.PUTTANNA SON OF LATE D.P. KENCHAMARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 R/AT DANTARAMAKKI VILLAGE, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKMAGALUR, PIN - 577 101.
6. SMT. D.K.PUTTAMMA WIFE OF NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MUNCIPAL QUARTERS, TARIKERE TOWN PIN - 577 228.
7. SMT. D.K.GOWRAMMA WIFE OF BEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, AJJAMPURA ROAD, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, PIN - 577 116.
8. D.R. RAMU SON OF RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
9. D.R.DINESH SON OF RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
10. D.R.SURESH SON OF RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 R/AT DANTARAMAKKI VILLAGE, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKMAGALUR, PIN - 577 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R8 TO R10; SRI. MANOJA B.G., ADOVATE FOR R1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 06.02.2016 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 06.02.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTIRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 164/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKAMAGALUR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellant. This Court on 24.10.2019 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 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.
SA Ct:sr Sd/- Judge