IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 521 OF 2018 Between:
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA SON OF PUTTAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NERALEKERE VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANJULA DEVI M. G., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) And:
1. SRI SHIVANNA SON OF NANJAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1(A) SMT. BHAGYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE PUTTANNA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1(A)-(a) SRI.PUTTANNA, H/O LATE SMT.BHAGYAMMA, AGED 57YEARS.
1(A)-(b) SRI. CHANNAPPA SON OF PUTTANNA AGED 33 YEARS.
1A-(c)SRI.GOPALA SON OF PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
1A-(d) SMT. BHARATHI DAUGHTER OF PUTTANNA AGED 27 YEARS.
1A-(e) SMT. DHANALAKSHMI DAUGHTER OF PUTTANNA AGED 24 YEARS.
1A-(f) SMT. CHANDRAKALA DAUGHTER OF PUTTANNA AGED 22 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1A (a) TO (f) ARE RESIDENTS OF SOMALAPURA VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.
1-B. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI WIFE OF BYRESH AGED 44 YEARS RESIDING AT SUBASH NAGARA, BEHIND I.B. NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
1-C. SMT. SWARNAGOWRAMMA WIFE OF GANESH, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT GULUR VILLAGE, POST AND HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SRI. T.S. GOPAL SON OF LATE SHIVANNA AGED 42 YEARS.
3. SRI.T.S. NAGARAJU SON OF LATE SHIVANNA AGED 36 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF THIMMAPPA BUILDING, BEHIND KRISHNA COMPLEX, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHANNAPATNA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED IN RA. NO. 73/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2011 PASSED IN OS. NO. 10/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) RAMANAGARA.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment None appears for the appellant. This Court on 26.09.2019 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 preemptory 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