Srimadd Jadguru Madhvachar Moola ... vs Sri Ningappa Hanumanthappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9169 Kant

                          -1-




                                      RSA No. 1374 of 2006


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1374 OF 2006 (INJ-)


BETWEEN:

1.    SRIMADD JAGADGURU MADHVACHAR MOOLA MAHA
      SAMSTHANA, UTTARADHI MUTT
      SRI 108 MATHADEESHA SATYAPRAMODA
      SWAMIGALU BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE 560 004

2.    SRIMADD JAGADGURU MADHAVACHAR
      MOOLA MAHA SAMSTHANA UTTARADHI MUTT
      SHAKHE HALABHAVI PLOTS, II CROSS
      KALYANANAGAR DHARWAD-580 001

3.    SRIMADD JAGADGURU MADHAVACHAR
      MOOLA MAHA SAMSTHANA UTTARADHI MUTT,
      SHAKHE HUBLI DR M.M.JOSHI EYE HOSPITAL
      HOSUR HUBLI 21


                                           ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VEENA.HEGDE ,ADVOCATE (ABSENT)

AND:

1.    SRI NINGAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA KANYAL
      AGED ABOUT 54 YRS OCC BUSINESSR
      R/O SORABADMATH GALLI HUBLI-21

2.    SRI VIRUPAXAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA
      KANYAL AGED ABOUT 49 YRS,
      OCC BUSINESS
                              -2-




                                           RSA No. 1374 of 2006


     R/AT SORABADMATH GALLI HUBLI-21

3.   SMT SHANTAVVA W/O ANDANEPPA KANYAL
     AGED ABOUT 44 YRSOCC HOUSEHOLD
     R/AT SORABADMATH GALLI HUBLI-21


                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

      THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT    &     DECREE    DT.23.2.2006,        PASSED    IN
R.A.NO.107/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) HUBLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 19.6.2004 PASSED IN
O.S. 578/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.)AND JMFC., HUBLI.

      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING,    THIS    DAY,    THE    COURT     DELIVERED     THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

There was no representation on behalf of the

appellants in the morning session and thereafter, case

was passed over. Even in the second session, there is no

representation on behalf of the appellants.

RSA No. 1374 of 2006

Since the appeal is of the year 2006, it appears that

the appellants are not willing to argue the matter.

Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB