Smt K Jalajakshi vs Smt K Mamatha
2021 Latest Caselaw 1477 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1759/2014


BETWEEN :

SMT K. JALAJAKSHI
W/O B. S. VITTALA
AGED 54 YEARS
R/O RAVI NIVAS
JODUBEETI VILLAGE
ARVARTHOKLU POST
VIA GONIKOPPA
VIRAJPET TALUK
SOUTH KODAGU - 571 252.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(By SRI. YATEESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND :

1.      SMT K. MAMATHA
        W/O B. S. ANANDA SHETTY
        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
        R/O C. P. K ROAD
        PONNAMPET TOWN & POST
        VIRAJPET TALUK
        KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252.

2.      SMT HEMAVATHI
        W/O SATISH
        AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                            2



     R/O SATISH TAILOR
     BAR LINE ROAD
     CHICKAMAGALORE TOWN - 577 125.

3.   SRI K. RAVI SHANKAR
     S/O LATE K. SUNDAR SHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     C/O YENZIN
     THIRUMALA BAR
     OPP TO KARNATAKA BANK
     JAIL ROAD
     CHICKMAGALORE TOWN - 577 125.

4.   SMT. K. SHOBHA
     W/O CHANDRAKANTH
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     C/O K. JALAJAKSHI
     RAVI NIVAS
     JODUBEETI VILLAGE
     ARVARTHOKLU POST
     VIA GONIKOPPA
     VIRAJPET TALUK
     SOUTH KODAGU - 571 252.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI.R.S. RAVI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
     VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2016;
      NOTICE TO R3 & R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2013
PASSED IN O.S. 37/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                       JUDGMENT

None appears for the appellant. Perused the order

dated 21.01.2021. Though the appeal is adjourned to be

listed today as a last chance for the learned Counsel for the

appellant, he remains absent. It is obvious that the

concerned is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for default.

SD/-

JUDGE

nv