Shivayogi S/O. Late Basappa ... vs Chandrashekar S/O. Late Basappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9749 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA TAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED TH IS THE 14 T H DAY OF JANUARY 2015

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUS TICE S.N. SA TYANARAYANA


                 R.S .A.NO.100508/2014

BETWEEN:

CHANDRASHEKHAR BELLARY
S/O. LATE BASAPPA BELLARY
AGE: 69 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. KAMALAPURA, DHARWAD

                                         .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANDHYA D., ADVOCA TE.)


AND:

1.    SHIVAYOGI S/O LATE BASAPPA BELLARY
      AGE: 53 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS
      R/O. KAMALAPURA, DHARWAD

2.    PRAKASH S/O.LA TE BASAPPA BELLARY
      AGE: 64 YEARS , OCC: RETD.
      DIST. CONSUMER FORUM, HAVERI

3.    SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. LA TE BASAPPA BELLARY
      AGE: 60 YEARS , OCC: SERVICE
      SPORT AU THORITY OF INDIA
      NETAJI SUBHAS SOUTHERN CENTRE
      MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE

4.    SOMASHEKAR S/O. LA TE BASAPPA BELLA RY
      AGE: 58 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS
      R/O. KAMALAPURA, DHARWAD
                          2




5.   SHIVAGANGAVVA W/O. LA TE BASAPPA BELLARY
     AGE: 91 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
     R/O. C/O. PRABHAVATI BELLARY
     5/1, 4 T H CROSS, DINNUR MAIN ROAD,
     AJJAPPA BLOCK, OPP. WH ITE HOUSE,
     R T NAGAR, BANGALORE

6.   PRABHAVATI @ KAMALA W/O. ANNAPPA BHAVIKAR
     @ BELLARY
     AGE: 56 YEARS , OCC: SERVICE
     R/O. 5/1, 4 T H CROSS, DINNUR MAIN ROAD,
     AJJAPPA BLOCK, OPP. WH ITE HOUSE,
     R T NAGAR, BANGALORE

7.   JAYASHREE W/O. SHASHIKUMAR PATIL
     AGE: 54 YEARS , OCC: SERVICE
     R/O. KAMALAPURA, DHARWAD

8.   SARVAMANGALA W/O. RAJU HEMAGIRI
     AGE: YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
     R/O. BHUSAPPA CHOWK, GAVALI ONI,
     DHARWAD

9.   TEJASVI D/O. LA TE BASAPPA BELLARY
     AGE: YEARS , OCC: TEACHER
     R/O. C/O. 5/1, 4 T H CROSS, DINNUR MAIN ROAD,
     AJJAPPA BLOCK, OPP. WH ITE HOUSE,
     R T NAGAR, BANGALORE

                                    .. RESPONDENTS

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 & ORDER 42 RU LES 1 & 2 OF CPC,
AGAINST TH E JUDGEMENT & DECREE D TD:21.04.2014
PASSED IN R.A.NO.263/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. DIS TRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINS T THE
JUDGMENT     D TD :07.09.2010 AND  THE    DECREE
PASSED IN O.S. NO.211/2000 ON THE F ILE OF THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD, ALLOWING
THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARTION & INJUNCTION,
ETC.,.
                               3




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR O RDERS                   TH IS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

Despite granting sufficient time, office

objections were not removed. Hence on

11.11.2014 a peremptory order was passed

granting six weeks time to do the needful, failing

which it was observed that the appeal would be

dismissed. In spite of the peremptory order, office

objections are not removed. Hence this appeal is

dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mrk/-