IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.NATARAJAN Regular Second Appeal No.509 OF 2014 (INJ) Between:
SMT. S.V.PILLAMMA W/O Y. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.453, KORAMANGALA, K.8, R.P.HUDCO HOUSE, BENGALURU CITY-560034.
... APPELLANT [BY SMT. JAYASHREE.G., ADV. (ABSENT)] And:
1. SRI. ANNAIAHAPPA, SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI. ANNAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SRI. RAJAPPA, SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHODDASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.188/2004 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment The appellant’s counsel remained absent even when the case is called for the second time at 4.50 p.m., The order sheet shows that though the appellant’s counsel remained absent, this Court has granted time as a last chance on 15.10.2014 itself. Inspite of calling the case twice, the appellant’s counsel does not chose to prosecute the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 of 2014 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE GH