IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 1163 OF 2017 Between:
SRI. KALEGOWDA SON OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT TALEMELA DODDI VILLAGE (TM DODDI), KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE) And:
1. SRI. PANCHALINGEGOWDA SON OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.
2. SRI. T. C. SHIVARAMU SON OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.
4. SMT. KAMALA WIFE OF PANCHALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT TALEMELE DODDI VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, WIFE OF MARISWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDABANASAVADI VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. SMT. YASHODAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, WIFE OF LATE NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALAHALLI, NEAR SCHOOL MANE, MANDYA CITY.
7. SMT. PUTTAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, WIFE OF SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANCHE GOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
8. SRI. M. GURUDEV SON OF MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MARALINGE GOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., SET ASDIE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS NO. 9/2007 DATED 19.04.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT MANDYA AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION PASSED IN RA NO. 137/2012 DATED 31.03.2012 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA, ACCORDINGLY PASS AN ORDER TO ALLOW THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN OS NO. 9/2007 TO MEET THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment This Court on 30.08.2019 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.
SA Ct:sr Sd/- Judge