IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2111 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri. Kumar Deeraj S/o. H.S.Veeranna, Aged about 12 years, Minor Guardian as Natural Mother Smt. Manjula Veeranna W/o. Veeranna, Aged about 50 years, R/at Door No.281/2, 4th Main, 9th Cross, P.J. Extension, Davanagere.
Presently at Door No.2770, 3rd Main, 2nd Cross, M.C.C. ‘B’ Block, Davanagere.
(By Sri Nagendra Kumar K, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. S.S.Hanagodimat S/o. Late Sangaiah, Aged about 80 years.
.. APPELLANT 2. Sri. H.S.Veeranna S/o. S.S.Hanagodimat Aged about 56 years, Door No.2770, 3rd Main, 2nd Cross, M.C.C. ‘B’ Block, Davanagere.
3. Sri. H.S.Vageesh S/o. S.S.Hanagodimat, Aged about 50 years.
Respondent 1 to 3 are R/at No.281/2, 4th Main, 9th Cross, P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
4. Sri.H.S.Murugesh S/o. S.S.Hanagodimat, Aged about 54 years, R/at 1890/472nd Cross, L.I.C. Colony, Vidyanagara, Davanagere.
Respondent No.1 and 3 and 4 Are residing at Door No.281/2, 4th Main, 9th Cross, P.J.Extension, Davanagere.
5. Sri. H.S.Sangamesh S/o. S.S.Hanagodimat, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.197/5, H.M.Road, Davanagere.
6. Sri. H.S.Suma W/o. Vageesh Katigeehallimat, D/o. S.S.Hanagodimat, Aged about 48 years, R/at No.2820/2, Sohan Driving School, 4th Main, 4th Cross, M.C.C. ‘B’ Block, Davanagere.
7. Commissioner Davanagere Mahanagara Palike, Davanagere.
.. RESPONDENTS This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated:01.08.2016 passed in O.S. No.22/2012, on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge, Davanagere, dismissing the suit for partition.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
None appear in this matter.
In spite of granting several and sufficient time of not less than four times to comply office objections, the appellant has not complied the office objections in this appeal of the year 2016. This goes to show that for nearly three years, the appellant has failed to comply the office objections, in spite of granting sufficient time to him.
The counsel for the appellant has not even appeared today and made any submission showing the reason for non compliance of office objections till date. As such, it has to be inferred that the appellant has neither complied the office objections nor evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of office objections and also for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*