Karnataka High Court
Basavanappa S/O Late Shankrappa ... vs Nagamma W/O Basavaraj And Ors on 25 August, 2021
Author: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.7013/2013
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVANAPPA S/O LATE SHANKRAPPA
AGE:68 YEARS, OCC: RTD. A.S.I.
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
2. RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHRAYA
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
3. SHARNAPPA HANUMANTHRAYA
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
4. SHANKRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHRAYA
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
5. MAMTA D/O HANUMANTHRAYA
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
6. SUVARNA W/O MALLIKARJUN
D/O HANUMANTHRAYA
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O POLAKPALLI VILLAGE, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
... APPELLANTS
(COURT NOTICE SERVED TO THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 6
V/O DATED 04.02.2021)
RSA No.7013/2013
2
AND:
1. NAGAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ
D/O LATE BAKKAPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O TELKUR, TQ. SEDAM
DIST.GULBARGA-585 306
2. SHANKUNTALA W/O KALAPPA
D/O LATE BAKKAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O DEGALMADI, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
3. SUBAMMA W/O RAMCHANDRAPPA
D/O LATE BAKKAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O DEGALMADI, TQ.CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA-585 307
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE SECOND APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.17/2009 BY CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) CHINCHOLI AND
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.39/2012 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.DIST. JUDGE, GULBARGA
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS WITH
COST THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
PHYSICAL/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None of the appellants, though called today also, are
appearing physically or virtually or through their counsel. In
RSA No.7013/2013
this appeal, the Court notices were issued against the
appellants vide order dated 04.02.2021, due to the elevation of
the learned counsel who was earlier appearing for the
appellants, as a High Court Judge. In spite of service of notice
though not less than two hearing dates were fixed and the
appellants were called for, they have been remaining absent.
2. On 05.08.2021, this Court had made an observation
that though the appeal could have been dismissed for non-
prosecution, however, before proceeding to pass any such
order, it was felt reasonable to grant one more opportunity to
the appellants to appear or to engage the services of any other
counsel, if they desire so. As such, the matter was adjourned.
Thereafter, the matter was listed on 13.08.2021, then also all
the appellants remained absent though called in the open
Court.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who is
physically present today and who was also present on
13.08.2021, submitted on that day that according to the
information received by him, the Final Decree Proceedings has
been concluded in the matter and the Final Decree Proceedings
has stood allowed, as such, the appeal has become infructuous.
RSA No.7013/2013
Today also he is reiterating the same submission.
4. Irrespective of the said submission, it is noticed that
in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities even
after service of Court notice upon them, the appellants since
have remained absent, it has to be inferred that appellants are
not interested in prosecuting the matter. As such, the appeal
stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2013 does
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
