Shantaram S/O. Yashawant ... vs Laxman S/O. Ravalu Nandodkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 280 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI


                R.S.A. No.5432/2013 (INJ)

BETWEEN

SHANTARAM S/O. YASHAWANT NANDODKAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BALOGA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELGAUM 590001.

                                            ...APPELLANT

(By Sri.RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADV.)



AND

1.    LAXMAN S/O. RAVALU NANDODKAR
      AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. BALOGA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
      DIST: BELGAUM 590001.

2.    MAHADEV S/O. RAVALU NANDODKAR
      AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. BALOGA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
      DIST: BELGAUM 590001.

3.    RAMU S/O. RAVALU NANDODKAR
                                  2




     AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BALOGA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELGAUM 590001.

                                                     ....RESPONDENTS

(APPEAL ABATED AGAINST R1;
 R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED)

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.14/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KHANAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2009 AND THE DECREE
PASSED IN O.S.NO.85/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, KHANAPUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

    THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Notice issue to respondent No.1 has returned with

endorsement that respondent No.1 is dead. On 04.11.2015, time

has been granted to the appellant to take steps for bringing the

legal representatives on record. Though the matter is listed before

this Court on innumerable occasion, needful has not been done.

2. Today the counsel reports that there is no instructions

from the appellant and appropriate orders may be passed.

3. It is seen that respondent No.1 in this appeal was

plaintiff No.1. Relief sought in the suit was for mandatory injunction

and possession. The appeal is dismissed as abated against

respondent No.1 for failure to bring the legal representatives of

deceased-respondent No.1 on record. As per the judgment passed

by the Appellate Court, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs

jointly and not individually, the entire appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

4. In view of the above, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGK