IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.203 of 2011 (PAR) BETWEEN 1. SRI VENKATARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’s., 1 (a). DR. ANJANAPPA V., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, (b). RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (c). GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, (d). NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (e). KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, (f). THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, (g). NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE SONS OF LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, R/O. LAKKENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
[BY CHINMAYI ASSOCIATES BY SRI MANJU R. KARDALLI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND 1. ANJANAPPA, S/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
2. BOREGOWDA, S/O. LATE CHIKKABYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT. KEMPAIAHNAPALYA, CHIKKAPURA POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 101.
3. JAYALAKSHMAMMA @ JAYAMMA, S/O. LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. MULKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 101.
4. M.C. GANGARAJU, S/O.LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT. MULKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 101.
...APPELLANTS … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.M. ANANTH KUMARAIAH, ADVOCATE for C/R3 IN CP No.1006/2010;
SRI K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE for R1 AND R4; R2 IS SERVED AND UREPRESENTED.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2010 PASSED IN R.A.No.107 of 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2005 PASSED IN O.S.No.364 of 2001 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., TUMKUR.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellants has not filed the paper-book. This Court vide order dated 11.02.2019 has noted that even though this Court had granted four weeks’ time for filing the paper book as on 21.09.2006, the same is not filed and finally granted two weeks’ time for filing the paper book, failing which the appeal would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
In spite of admitting the appeal on 21.09.2016 and granting several adjournments and even after expiry of more than three years, learned counsel for the appellants has not chosen to file the paper-book. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-filing of the paper-book.
SD/- JUDGE mv