Suresh S/O. Veerbhadhrappa ... vs Veerendra S/O. Rudragouda ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5568 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

        Dated this the 11th day of October 2019
                        Present
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                          and
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL


     R.F.A. No.4136 of 2012 (Partn. & Sep. Possn.)


Between

Sri Suresh, S/o Veerbhadhrappa
 Jamalingappanavar, Age: 52 Years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Harlapur,
Tq & Dist: Gadag-581149.                ...Appellant

(By Sri. B. V. Somapur, Advocate - absent)

And
1.   Veerendra,
     S/O. Rudragouda Umachagi
     Age: 25 Years, Occ: Private Service
     R/O.No. 137 Adarsh Nagar,
     Hubli-580039.

2.   Sri Rudragouda,
     S/O. Veerbhadragouda Umachagi
     Age: 58 Years, Occ: Agriculture & Pvt. service
     R/O.No. 137, Adarsh Nagar,
     Hubli-580039.
3.   Smt. Jayalaxmi,
     W/O. Rudragouda Umachagi,
     Age: 51 Years, Occ: Household Work
                                2




     R/O.No. 137, Adarsh Nagar,
     Hubli-580039.

4.   Dr. Basavarajeshwari,
     W/O. Dr. Somashekar Huddar,
     Age: 28 Years, Occ: Doctor
     R/O. No.17, 2nd Main, Padmaraj Nagar,
     Gokul Road, Hubli-580038.

5.   Smt. Bhuvaneshwari,
     W/O. Rajashekar Haraganahalli,
     Age: 26 Years, Occ: Private Service
     R/O. No.137, Adarsh Nagar,
     Hubli-580039.                       ...Respondents

(R1 & R3 - served ) (appeal dismissed as against R2)
(R4 & R5 - service of notice held sufficient)

      This RFA is filed under Section 96 read with
Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and
decree dated 26.06.2012 passed in O.S. No.113/2011
on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Hubli, decreeing the suit filed for declaration, partition
and separate possession.

       This RFA coming on for Hearing this day, ALOK
ARADHE, J, made the following:


                         ORDER

None for the parties.

The order sheet dated 08.08.2019 indicates that

none had appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Thereupon, the case was directed to be listed after a

week. The matter, thereafter, was listed on

30.08.2019. On the aforesaid date also, none

appeared on behalf of the appellant. The case was

thereupon directed to be listed on 4th September 2019.

The order sheet dated 23.09.2019 also does not record

the presence of the counsel for the appellant and the

case was directed to be listed after one week.

Today also, when the matter has been called,

none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the

circumstances, it appears that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal. In the result, the

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kms