IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.579 OF 2017 Between:
1. Sri Venkatesha S/o Late Rambovi Aged about 51 years 2. Sri R. Ramu S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 49 years 3. Sri Devaraju S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 47 years 4. Sri Mohankumar S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 43 years 5. Sri Hemachandra S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 39 years 6. Sri Mahesha S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 37 years 7. Sri Girish S/o Late Ramabovi Aged about 37 years All residing at Lingambudhi Palya Srirampura Post, Kasaba Hobli Mysore Taluk.
(By Sri. Freud Richardson, Advocate - Absent) And:
1. Smt Chennamma D/o Late Girigowda Aged about 62 years 2. Smt Lakshmamma D/o Late Girigowda Aged about 52 years 3. Smt Prema D/o Late Girigowda Aged about 48 years 4. Sri Kodandarama D/o Late Girigowda Aged about 40 years R1 to R4 are residing at D.No.2369 New Kantharaja Urs Road K.G. Koppal, Chamaraja Mohalla Mysore 5. Sri Sureshkumar Mittal S/o Mittalal Aged about 39 years Residing at No.2909 Kantharaja Urs Road Saraswathipuram Mysore 6. Sri B. Beeregowda S/o Late Beeregowda Aged about 64 years Residing at No.2369 ... Appellants New Kantharaja Urs Road K.G.Koppal Mysore 7. Mysore University Employees Housing Construction Co-Operative Society Rept. by its President Crafard Hall, Mysore University Mysore ... Respondents This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 r/w Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 passed in RA No.739/2014 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed in OS No.1433/2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore.
This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T None appears on 11.02.2019.
2. Nevertheless, this Court granted one week time to comply with the office objections. The office objections are not complied with despite this order.
3. None appears even today.
4. It is obvious that the concerned is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for default.
SD/- JUDGE RB