IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1062 of 2011 (PAR) BETWEEN 1. PARVATHAMMA, W/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. REVANNA, S/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. NAGAPPA, S/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. LOKAPPA, S/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 5. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HALEKAL VILLAGE, BILICHOD HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK – 577 601. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS [BY SRI SRIDHAR T., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND 1. SRI CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI BASAMMA, W/O LATE PARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 3. SRI RAMAPPA, S/O PARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, ALL RESPONDENTS Nos.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK – 577 601, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. SRI BASAPPA, S/O NINJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARIKUNTE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK – 577 601.
5. ADIVEPPA, S/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARIKUNTE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK – 577 601.
6. BASAMMA, W/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ASAGODU VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK – 577 601.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV., for R1 – R3; R4, R5, R6 ARE SERVED.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.No.78 of 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2009 PASSED IN O.S.No.17 of 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.,) & JMFC, JAGALUR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION along with Misc.Cvl.9824/2011, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellants remained absent even when the case is called for the second time at 3.45 p.m. today. This Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 had observed that the appeal is of the year 2011 and in case, appeal is not prosecuted on the next date of hearing, the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the matter was listed on two occasions i.e. on 06.08.2019 and 13.09.2019, but there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Again the case was listed on 11.10.2019 and this Court has observed as follows:
“ xxx Today when the case is called, appellants’ counsel is not present. However, one more chance is given to the appellants’ counsel to address the arguments, failing which the appeal will be dismissed for non-prosecution on the next date of hearing.
List on 22.10.2019.”
Today, the case was called in the morning session and passed over as there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Again it is called at 3.45 p.m. and learned counsel for the appellants remained absent. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. In view of continuous absence of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, Misc.Cvl.9824/2011 is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv