Smt. Madamma vs Smt. Rajamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2117 Kant

                           1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

                 R.S.A.NO.1873 OF 2013
BETWEEN:

1. SMT MADAMMA
   AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
   W/O LATE J.N. MADAIAH

2. SRI. MUKUNDA
   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
   S/O. LATE MADAIAH

     BOTH ARE R/A. NO.1143/25
     GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD
     7TH CROSS, CILLE MOHALLA
     VIDYARANYAPURAM
      MYSREO-570 001.                 ... APPELLANTS

(By Sri: NAGARAJA REDDY D., AND
         S. GANGADHARA, ADV., (ABSENT))

AND

1.     SMT RAJAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
       W/O MUKUNDA
       R/A. NO.314, ALANAHALLI
       T. NARISIPURA
       MYSORE ROAD.
       MYSORE-571 124.

2.     SMT. SHIVAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
       W/O LATE SHANKAR
       R/O. YEDADORE VILLAGE AND POST
                              2




     T. NARASIPURA TALUK
     MYSORE-571 124.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(By R2-SD & UNREPRESENTED)
                      -------

      THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 16.7.2011 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.564/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD
22.6.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.55/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, T. NARASIPURA.

     THIS R.S.A COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 25.11.2013. Even after

lapse of six weeks, office objections were not complied. The

case was posted on 2.6.2014. On that day, further two

weeks' time was granted to comply office objections. The

notices to the respondents were issued on 17.7.2014. The

notices were unserved. On 20.11.2015, finally, time was

granted upto 9.12.2015 to take effective steps to issue

notice to the respondents. In the order, it was also made

clear that failure to take steps why the appeal should not

be dismissed for not taking effective steps. Even after such

an order is passed, steps have not been taken by the

appellants. When the case was listed this day i.e., on

06.01.2016, neither the appellants nor the counsel for the

appellants are present. There is no representation. Steps

have not been taken inspite of specific direction by the

Court. It appears that the appellants are no more

interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-