IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 958 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) Between:
1. SRI DODDABASAVE GOWDA SON OF NINGE GOWDA @ YADACHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2. SRI H. L. SHANKARE GOWDA SON OF NINGE GOWDA @ YADACHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BIDARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K P BHUVAN., ADVOCATE (ABSNET)) And:
1. SRI KENCHE GOWDA SON OF LATE KUNTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BADAGANAHUNDI VILALGE KERGALLI DAKHALE JAYAPURA HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
2. SMT. RATHNA WIFE OF LATE H. L. MADHU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3. SRI H. M. PUNITH GOWDA SON OF LATE H. L. MAHDU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
4. SRI H M LIKITH GOWDA SON OF LATE H. L. MAHDU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5. SRI H. M. ABITH GOWDA SON OF LATE H. L. MAHDU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
6. SRI H. L. CHIKKABASAVE GOWDA SON OF NINGE GOWDA @ YADACHE GOWD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
7. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA WIFE OF LATE H. M. BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
8. SRI RAMESH. B SON OF LATE H. M. BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT BIDARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 576/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2014 PASSED IN OS. NO. 1308/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADIDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MYSURU.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellants. This Court on 14.10.2019 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 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