Hanmanthreddy Since Deceased By ... vs Shobha W/O Late Bhimreddy And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12481 Kant

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   GULBARGA BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.200132/2014

Between:

Hanmanthreddy
Since deceased by LRs.

1. Eramma
   W/o Hanmanthreddy Mudbi
   Age: 65 years

2. Bhuvan Reddy
   @ Bhouneshreddy
   S/o Erareddy Mudabi
   Age: 22 years

   Both R/o Wanjari
   Humnabad Town
   Dist. Bidar-585326
                                          ... Appellants

(By Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate-Absent)

And:

1. Shobha
   W/o Late Bhimreddy
   (Wrongly claiming to be the
   wife of Bhimreddy)
   Age: 41 years
                              2




2. Aishwaryya
   D/o Bhimreddy
   (Wrongly claiming to be the
   daughter of Bhimreddy)
   Age: 8 years, Minor under the
   Guardianship of her mother
   Shobha W/o Late Bhimreddy
   (Wrongly claiming to be the
   wife of Bhimreddy)
   Age: 41 years

3. Sudharani
   D/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru
   Age: 12 years, Minor u/g of her
   mother Smt. Manku
   W/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru

4. Vaishnavi
   D/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru
   Age:10 years, Minor u/g of her
   Mother Smt. Manku
   W/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru

5. Tirumal Reddy
   S/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru
   Age: 9 years, Minor u/g of her
   Mother Smt. Manku
   W/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru

6. Smt. Manku
   W/o Basavareddy Mudbanavaru
   Age: 28 years

7. Renuka W/o Raja Reddy
   Age: 30 years

8. Pavan S/o Rajareddy
   Age: 13 years
                              3




   Minor u/g of his mother
   Renuka W/o Raja Reddy

9. Archana D/o Rajareddy
   Age: 12 years, Minor
   u/g of her mother
   Renuka W/o Raja Reddy

10.Revamma
   W/o Sanjureddy Yenpushi
   Age: 56 years

11.Sulochana
   W/o Porasreddy Mudbikar
   Age: 46 years

   All are r/o Wanjari
   Humnabad, Dist. Bidar

                                            ... Respondents

      This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100
of the CPC, against the judgment and decree dated
11.02.2014 passed in R.A. No.30/2012      on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge at Humnabad, dismissing the appeal &
confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012
passed in O.S.No. 73/2008 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge
at Humnabad.

      This appeal is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
                                    4




                                ORDER

This appeal was filed on 05.04.2014. As the

appellants had failed to comply with the office

objections within six weeks' time, the appeal came to be

listed before Court for Orders on 17.10.2014 as

contemplated under Rule 17 of Chapter XII of High

Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, regarding non-

compliance of office objections, on which day the

following order came to be passed:

"Appellants are finally granted time up to 11.11.2014 for compliance of office objections, failing which, list the appeal for orders on 14.11.2014 as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections."

2. Today, neither the office objections are

complied with nor there is representation for the

appellants. From the above facts, it is clear that

appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*