Shri.Shrinivas S/O Annayya Bhat vs Putta Bhata Annayya Bhat
2022 Latest Caselaw 13059 Kant

                             1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100496 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.     SHRI. SHRINIVAS
       S/O ANNAYYA BHAT
       AGED: 65 YEARS,
       OCC: ARCHAK AND AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: MANJUGUNI, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

2.     SUBRAMANYA
       S/O ANNAYYA BHAT
       AGED: 62 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND SERVICE,
       R/O: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                         ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHREEVASTSA HEGDE AND VISHWANATH HEGDE
ADVOCATES (ABSENT) )

AND:

1.     PUTTA BHATA ANNAYYA BHAT
       AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: MANJUUNI, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2.     PURUSHOTTAM ANNAYYA BHAT
       AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: MANJUUNI, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

3.     SMT. AHALYA KOM CHANDRASHEKHAR BHAT
       AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                               2




       R/O: KARSULLI, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

4.     SMT.SUSHEELA KOM GAJANAN SHARMA
       AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: HOSTHOT, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

5.     DIVASPATI DEVENDRA VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE,
       HEGDEKATTA, SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

6.     SUBRAMANYA DIVASPATI VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

7.     DEVARAJA DIVASPATI VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

8.     KRISHNA DIVASPATI VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

9.     GANAPATI DIVASPATI VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

10 .   VIRAJ DIVASPATI VISHWAMITRA
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.
                             3




11 .   AMRUTA KRISHNA HEGDE
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

12 .   SHARADA SEETARAM HEGDE
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.

13 .   SUKANYA RAVI HEGDE
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: ONIGADDE, HEGDEKATTA,
       SIRSI TALUK,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581403.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS


      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT        AND DECREE UNDER APPEAL
O.S.NO.17/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
SIRSI   AND    JUDGMENT     AND     DECREE  PASSED    BY
R.A.NO.5010/2017 ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDITIONAL AND
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT AT
O.S.NO.17/2010 BE DISMISSED, ETC.,.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

Though the matter is called twice, there is no

representation on behalf of appellants.

The appeal is listed today for orders regarding

non-compliance of office objections.

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the

appeal is filed in the year 2019. Now we are in the month

of November 2022. It's almost been three years since the

date of filing of the appeal, so far office objections are not

complied with.

It appears that the appellants have not instructed

the counsel on record to comply office objections and as

already noted above, though the matter is called twice,

there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence,

the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objection and also for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE MRK