Smt Balubai W/O Hanumanthappa ... vs Smt Shantavva W/O Ananthappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11312 Kant

                            -1-




                                         RFA No. 11 of 2006


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                         BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2006 (PAR)


BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. BALUBAI W/O HANUMANTHAPPA PHULMALE
     @ BADIGER, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SCHOOL TEACHER
     (ANJUMAN URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL NO.6,
     R/O. GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD)

2.   VASANT S/O HANUMANTHAPPA PHULMALE
     @ BADIGER, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
     R/O.GANDHINAGAR, PLOT NO.62, DHARWAD

3.   VILAS S/O HANUMANTHAPPA PHULMALE
     @ BADIGER, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
     R/O GANDHINAGAR, PLOT NO.62, DHARWAD

4.   KUMARI. VARSHA @ PINKI D/O HANUMANTHAPPA
     PHULMALE @ BADIGER, AGE: 26 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O GANDHINAGAR
     PLOT NO.62, DHARWAD



                                                ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT SHANTAVVA W/O. ANANTHAPPA PHULMALE @
     BADIGER, AGE: 67 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
     R/O SHIGGAON
                             -2-




                                         RFA No. 11 of 2006


2.   PARASHURAM S/O ANANTHAPPA PHULMALE @
     BADIGER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTARY
     R/O SHIGGAON

3.   CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O ANANTHAPPA PHULMALE @
     BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR,OCC: CARPENTARY
     R/O SHIGGAON

4.   SMT. ANUSUYA W/O RAJAPPA BANASODE
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
     R/O NARAGUND, TQ: NARAGUND, DISTRICT:GADAG



                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(SRI. M M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3
SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

      THIS RFA IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 29.08.2005 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.107/98 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) HAVERI
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.


                       JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a

memo for retirement on 24.06.2020 along with copy of

the notices dated 05.08.2019 and 18.03.2020, addressed

to the first appellant and the same were also served on

the appellant and in spite of notices were acknowledged

by the appellant twice in the month of August 2019 and

RFA No. 11 of 2006

also in the month of March 2020, the appellant was not

made any arrangement to engage the Counsel and also

not appeared in person. The learned counsel for the

appellants also submits that the appellant is not responded

to the notice. Hence, he could not take steps against

respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the appellants

is permitted to retire and no need of again issuance of

notice against the appellants through the Court.

2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*