IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2467 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G. RAMESH SON OF LATE G.GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SRI. R.SUNIL SON OF G.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DASARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, D.K.HALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. C. DHANANJAY., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
1. SRI. G. MURALIKRISHNA SON OF LATE G.GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU, RESIDING AT V.M. NAIDU COMPOUND, 6TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK.
2. SRI.G.BABU SON OF LATE G.GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT GANESHPURAM, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, KGF.
3. SMT. GOPISHREE WIFE OF LATE CHANNA KESHVA NAIDU, R/AT TAMARIND TREE ROAD, CHIKKAMANGALURU KARNATAKA STATE.
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O C.K.ARUN BABU NAIDU, NO.7, RK APARTMENTS, PRAKUTHI PALMS 94, 3RD MAIN, HOYSALA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016.
4. SMT. DEVAKI WIFE OF PRAKASH, DAUGHTER OF LATE G. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT DASARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK.
5. SMT. SHASHIKALA WIFE OF RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU DAUGHTER OF LATE G. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU, C/O HOTEL RAJESH, KUPPAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
AND ALSO AT H.P.ROAD, DOLLARS LAYOUT, KUPPAM POST AND TALUK – 517 425 CHITTOR DISTRICT, A.P.
6. SRI.S.VENKATASWAMY SON OF GURRAPPA, BEML EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT DASARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 114/2014 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF) CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2014 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 12/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLAR GOLD FIELD AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellants. This Court on 11.09.2019 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 nv Ct:sr