Niranjan S/O Mallikarjungouda ... vs Smt.Jayalaxmi D/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3850 Kant

                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR


            R.F.A.No.100053/2019 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

     NIRANJAN S/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

1.   SMT.UMA W/O NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL,
     AGE: 39 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: PLOT NO.8,
     SHIVANAND NILAY
     RAVINDRA NAGAR,
     UNKAL, HUBBALLI.

2.   KUMARI NEHA D/O NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL
     AGE: 17 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: PLOT NO.8,
     SHIVANAND NILAY
     RAVINDRA NAGAR,
     UNKAL, HUBBALLI.

3.   KUMARI SHEETAL D/O NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL
     AGE: 14 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: PLOT NO.8,
     SHIVANAND NILAY
     RAVINDRA NAGAR,
     UNKAL, HUBBALLI.
                               2




       SINCE APPELLANT 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
       REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
       MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.

4.     BASAVRAJ
       S/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL
       AGE: 46 YEARS,
       OCC: DOCTOR,
       R/O: PLOT NO.8,
       SHIVANAND NILAY
       RAVINDRA NAGAR,
       UNKAL, HUBBALLI.

5.     SMT.PUSPA
       W/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL
       AGE: 66 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: PLOT NO.8,
       SHIVANAND NILAY
       RAVINDRA NAGAR,
       UNKAL, HUBBALLI.
                                             .. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI &
    SRI.S.D.KULKARNI, ADVS. (ABSENT)

AND:

1.   SMT.JAYALAXMI
     D/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL
     AFTER MARRIAGE
     SMT.JAYALAXMI
     W/O NARAYANASA KHATAVATE,
     AGE: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O: I CROSS,
     RANADAMMA COLONY
     NEKAR NAGAR, OLD-HUBBALLI.

2.   RAYAVVA
     W/O SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL
     AGE: 73 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: NEW MALAWAD VILALGE,
     TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
                                 3




3.    NEELAMMA @ NEELAVVA
      W/O CHANNAPPAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDAR,
      AGE: 52 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI,
      DIST: GADAG.

4.    SIDDANAGOUDA
      S/O SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL,
      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
      R/O: SRIRAM NAGAR,
      ATTIKOPPA, DHARWAD.

5.    SANGANAGOUDA
      S/O SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL,
      AGE: 48 YEARS,
      OCC: HIGHER SECONDARY
      SCHOOL TEACHER,
      R/O: H.NO.LIG-89, 7TH CROSS,
      NEAR ROTARY SCHOOL,
      OPP. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

6.    SHIVANAGOUDA
      S/O SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL,
      AGE: 46 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: NEW MALAWAD VILLAGE,
      TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

                                                .. RESPONDENTS

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE   JUDGMENT    AND    DECREE     DTD.27.11.2018   PASSED   IN
O.S.NO.278/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION.


       THIS   APPEAL   COMING   ON    FOR   ORDERS   THIS   DAY,
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 4




                          JUDGMENT

This court by order dated 30.10.2019 granted two weeks time to comply with the office objections, but the office objections are not complied with. Again the matter was posted on 04.03.2020 and two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, when the matter was posted on 23.04.2021, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. However, two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the matter was posted on 07.06.2021 and this court granted one week time to comply with the office objections.

Today, the matter is posted for compliance of office objections. When the matter is called in the first round, there is no representation. Even on the second round also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants and office objections are also not complied with. It appears that, appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-