Karnataka High Court
Tarachand S/O Gopu And Ors vs Zumakabai W/O Devidas on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3511-DB
RFA No. 200005 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200005 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. TARACHAND S/O GOPU
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
2. JAIRAM S/O DHANSING
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE
3. GORAM S/O DHANSING
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR ALL R/O : CHINCHOLI (H),
Location: HIGH TQ : CHITTAPUR.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. KAMALABAI W/O RAMCHANDRA RATHOD
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : CHINCHOLI (H),
TQ : CHITTAPUR.
5. LALBAI W/O MEGHU RATHOD
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : HULUSGUD TANDA,
TQ : CHINCHOLI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3511-DB
RFA No. 200005 of 2015
6. PUTALABAI W/O KALU RATHOD
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : MOKIN TAND SARADAGI VILLAGE,
TQ & DISTRICT: GULBARGA.
7. ZALABAI W/O MOTIRAM CHAWAN
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : CHANDANKERA VILLAGE,
TQ : CHINCHOLI, DISTRICT: GULBARGA.
8. KASHIBAI W/O RAJU RATHOD
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : CHINCHOLI VILLAGE,
TQ : CHITTAPUR.
9. KHIRABAI W/O LATE DHANSING PAWAR
AGE: 87 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : CHINCHOLI (H)
TQ : CHITTAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(APPELLANTS NO'S 1 TO 9 ARE ABSENT)
AND:
ZUMKABAI W/O DEVIDAS
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : CHINCHOLI (H),
TQ : CHITTAPUR - 585101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHARADA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.09.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
CHITTAPUR AT CHITTAPUR IN OS. NO.232/2011 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY
THE PLAINTIFF AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DECREE THE
COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3511-DB
RFA No. 200005 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
On 29.05.2024, the learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo for retirement. The said memo was placed on record. He was permitted to retire from the case and office was directed to print the name of appellants in the cause list and accordingly the name of appellants is printed in the cause list.
Appellants called out, none appears. The appeal is of the year 2015. It shows that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT;BN