Karnataka High Court
Smt.Hemalatha vs Smt. Kuppammal on 11 November, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45515
RFA No. 1119 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT.HEMALATHA
W/O SHIVAKUMAR C,
D/O KUPPAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/A NO.683/42, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560021
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR G BAGOJI., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
1. SMT. KUPPAMMAL
Digitally signed
by JUANITA W/O MALLIKARJUNA,
THEJESWINI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/A NO.33/A, 1ST CROSS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1ST MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021
2. VIJAYKUMAR M
S/O MALLIKARJUNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A NO.33/A, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45515
RFA No. 1119 of 2015
3. SMT MANJULA
W/O RAMESH,
D/O MALLIKARJUNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A NO.33/A, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560021
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED
V/O DT. 30/09/2024, R2 & R3 STANDS DISMISSED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., R/W ORDER
XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 26.06.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4272/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE(C.C.H.5), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned Counsel for the appellant has remained absent. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that even on 16.10.2024, learned Counsel remained absent.
2. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. Case against respondents No.2 and 3 has been dismissed for not taking steps. The order sheet dated 30.09.2024 also reveals that appellant's counsel has not taken any -3- NC: 2024:KHC:45515 RFA No. 1119 of 2015 steps and has remained absent. Even the order sheet dated 26.09.2024 reveals that appellant's counsel has remained absent continuously. It shows that the appellant's counsel is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE JT/-
CT: JL