Mallanagouda S/O Mudigouda ... vs Jattippa A/F Basappa Shidenur
2022 Latest Caselaw 12393 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100683 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.      MALLANAGOUDA
        S/O MUDIGOUDA SHIDENUR
        AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE.

2.      BASANAGOUDA
        S/O MUDIGOUDA SHIDENUR
        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE.

3.      RUDRAGOUDA
        S/O MUDIGOUDA SHIDENUR
        AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE.

        ALL ARE R/O: LINGADEVARAKOPPA
        TQ: HIREKERUR
        DIST: HAVERI.                       ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.HARSHAWARDHAN M.PATIL., AND
      SRI.M.H.PATIL., ADVOCATES [ABSENT])

AND:

JATTIPPA A/F BASAPPA SHIDENUR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: LINGADEVARAKOPPA
TQ: HIREKERUR
DIST: HAVERI.                               ...RESPONDENT
                                2




      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2019
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR IN R.A.NO.19/2018,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT      AND   DECREE    DATED:23.06.2018,     PASSED   IN
O.S.NO.101/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE   JUDICIAL    MAGISTRATE     FIRST   CLASS,   HIREKERUR,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND
INJUNCTION.


      THIS RSA POSTED FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

Though matter 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 on 16.09.2019. Now we are in the month of October

2022. It's 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 matter 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 TKN