IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. MUDAGAL Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.26/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI CHALUVARAYAPPA S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KEMPANAHALLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-571112 (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADV.) AND 1. SRI R N RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT RAJAGERE, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-571112 2. SRI.C.HANUMANTTHAIAH S/O CHANNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI.H.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. SRI.H.VINODH KUMAR S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.531, ... APPELLANT MARUTHI NILAYA, HOYSALANAGARA VISHWA NIDAM POST BANGALORE-560091 5. SMT. HUCHAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR 6. SRI. DHANANJAYA S/O SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR 7. SMT. ANASUYAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR 8. SMT. YASHODA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR 9. SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE R/O KEMPANAHALLI, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-571112 10. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O K.C.BETTASWAMY AGED MAJOR R/O SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE TUMKUR-571112 11. SRI MARIYAPPA W/O KEMPAHONNAIAH AGED MAJOR NITTUR, KEMPANAHALLI POST HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI KUNITAL TALUK-571112 12. SRI.B.N.NINGAPPA S/O B.N.NINGAIAH AGED MAJOR, R/O D.NO.177, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR, SREEGANDHA (SREENIVASA NAGARA) SUNKADAKATTE PIPELINE VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560070 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. R. RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. M. R. RAJAGOPAL, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4 R5, R6, R8, R9 & R11 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O DT.27.02.2019, APPEAL AGAINST R7, R10 & R12 ARE DISMISSED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 T(u) OF CPC 1908. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 27.02.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.56/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUNIGAL ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:31.07.13 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.8/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.54 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment No representation for appellant. On the last hearing date also there was no representation for the appellant. It appears appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.
2. Therefore, appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE RD