Mallappa Kenchappa Yalagudri vs Bhagawwa W/O. Ramappa Marnur
2022 Latest Caselaw 2912 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5078 OF 2012 (DEC)

BETWEEN

MALLAPPA KENCHAPPA YALAGUDRI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN : 580017.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND
1.    BHAGAWWA W/O. RAMAPPA MARNUR
      AGE: 80 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
      R/O. KUMBARHALL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
      DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN : 580019

2.    DHAREPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MARANUR
      AGE: 45 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. KUMBARHALL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
      DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 580017.

3.    BHEEMAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MARNUR
      AGE: 35 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. KUMBARHALL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
      DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 580017.

4.    NINGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MARANUR
      AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. KUMBARHALL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
                              2




     DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 580017.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S L MATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 21.04.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) JAMAKHANDI IN R.A.NO.22/2009 DISMISSING THE
APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.03.2009 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI IN O.S.NO.94/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


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


                        JUDGMENT

On perusal of the order sheet, it reveals that this

matter was listed on 14.08.2019 and on the said day,

there was no representation on behalf of the appellant

and therefore it was adjourned. On 29.07.2020, when the

matter was listed, again there was no representation on

behalf of the appellant and it was adjourned. On

06.08.2020 also none appeared for the appellant.

Today also when the matter is called out, there is

no representation on behalf of the appellant. It seems

that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the

appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE YAN