Dasharath S/O Siddappa Salagar vs Laxmibai W/O Dashrath
2021 Latest Caselaw 2056 Kant

                            1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
                      BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
                 RSA NO.7162/2011
BETWEEN:
DASHARATH
S/O SIDDAPPA SALAGAR
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DHARMAWADI
TQ. ALAND,
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103.
                                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NARENDRA BETTAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

LAXMIBAI
W/O DASHRATH
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O DHARMAWADI
TQ. ALAND,
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103.
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)

                            --------

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREES DATED
                               2




27.09.2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ALAND IN R.A.NO.2/2010 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE (JR. DN) AT ALAND IN O.S.NO.32/2006, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

                        JUDGMENT

It is seen from the order sheet that the learned

counsel for the appellant has remained continuously

absent for four dates. Today also, i.e., on 31.05.2021,

learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent.

There is no representation for the appellant.

It is seen that this appeal is pending since 2011. The

original suit is of the year 2006 wherein the suit of the

plaintiff wife is dismissed. Thereafter, R.A.No.2/2010 was

filed and it was also disposed of on 27TH September 2010

and a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month was awarded

to the appellant wife. Thereafter, this appeal is filed by the

defendant husband. The order sheet indicates that number

of times, there is no representation on behalf of the

appellant. Therefore, it shows that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appeal is

pending nearly a decade on a very small issue. There is no

purpose in keeping this appeal pending when the parties

are not interested in prosecuting the appeal inspite of

giving sufficient opportunities. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-