Shri. Girishnkar S/O. Manjegouda ... vs Devdas S/O. Pundalik Baddi
2022 Latest Caselaw 13106 Kant

                            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

  REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100490 OF 2018 (MON)


BETWEEN:

SHRI. GIRISHANKAR
S/O. MANJEGOUDA UDAYAVAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. ANKUSH ARCADE,
MUNICIPAL WARD NO.46,
SHOP NO.B-31, STATION ROAD,
HUBBALLI.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH B. KALE , ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:


1.     DEVDAS S/O PUNDALIK BADDI
       AGE: ABOUT 63 YEARS,
       OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O. GANESH PETH,
       WADDAR ONI, HUBBALLI.

2.     A. B. SUDARSHAN
       AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS,
       OCC: DEVELOPING WORK,
       PROPRIETOR OF ANKUSH ARCADE,
       STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI.

3.     SMT. SHARADADEVI
       W/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
       AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO.8,
                               2




      PRASHANT COLONY,
      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

4.    SMT. GANGU W/O BASAVARAJ DIGGAVI
      AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O: PLOT NO.8, PRASHANT COLONY,
      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

5.    SATISH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
      AGE: ABOUT 38 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: PLOT NO.8, PRASHANT COLONY,
      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

6.    UMESH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
      AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: PLOT NO.8, PRASHANT COLONY,
      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, PASSED IN O.S.NO.426/2007,
DATED 04.02.2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
REGULAR APPEAL NO.36/2013, DATED 21.08.2017, BY THE
I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND SET-ASIDE THE
SAME WITH COSTS AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SUIT
O.S.NO.426/2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

     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 appellant.

The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non-

compliance of office objections for fifth time.

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal

is filed in the year 2018. Now we are in the month of

November 2022. It's almost been four years since the date

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

complied with.

It appears that the appellant has 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 appellant. Hence, the Regular

Second Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office

objection and also for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MRK