Karnataka High Court
Sulochana W/O Shivaraya Maratha vs Vithalrao S/O Siddhappa Maratha Ors on 1 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4531
RSA No. 7216 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7216 OF 2011 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SULOCHANA W/O SHIVARAYA MARATHA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. MALGHAN,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SULOCHANA (ABSENT)
AND:
1. VITHALRAO S/O SIDDHAPPA MARATHA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI 1(a) LAXMIBAI W/O NARAYANRAO,
Location: High
Court of AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Karnataka R/O. RAMTEERTH, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
1(b). SARASWATI W/O HANAMANTHRAO,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
TQ & DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
1(c). ANNAPURNA W/O TUKARAM,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PETH SIROOR,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4531
RSA No. 7216 of 2011
2. SMT. SONABAI W/O VITHALRAO,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H. NO. 74, MALGHAN VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
3. SHANKAR S/O VITHALRAO,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H. NO. 74, MALGHAN VILLAGE
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
4. VIKRAM S/O VITHALRAO,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H. NO. 74, MALGHAN VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B D HANGARKI, SRI K.B. HANGARKI AND
SRI S.B. HANGARKI, ADVS FOR R1(b), R1(c), R2,
C/R-3 AND R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED IN R.A. NO.42/2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, GULBARGA CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED DATED 21.01.2010 IN O.S.NO.113/2003
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) CHITTAPUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4531
RSA No. 7216 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Court notice issued to the appellant has returned with bailiff report, reporting that appellant is not residing at the said address.
2. Appeal is of the year 2011, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. This Court has no other option than to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2