Inirabai W/O Bheemrao Biradar vs Venkat S/O Vinayakrao Biradar
2022 Latest Caselaw 12574 Kant

                          1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

           RSA NO.200263/2014 (PAR/POS)

 BETWEEN

1. INDIRABAI W/O BHIMRAO BIRADAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRIL.,
R/O LADWANTI VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR,
NOW AT MALGEWADI, TQ. OMERGA
DIST. OSMANABAD (MS)

2. SHARADA W/O GOVINDRAO SOM VANSHE
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O MALGEWADI, TQ: MERGA
DIST: LATUR (MS).

3. ARUNA W/O MOHANRAO MORE
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O VILLAGE BEDAGU, TQ: OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD (MS).
                                          ...APPELLANTS
(APPELLANT NO.1 - DEAD;
APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 SERVED)

AND

1. VENKAT S/O VINAYAKRAO BIRADAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O LADWANTI VILLAGE, TQ BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR.

2. MANDAKINI W/O BABURAO SINDHE
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND
                             2

AGRICULTURE, R/O TALBHOG VILLAGE,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR.

3. NANASHI W/O SHIVANAND
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NISARGI, TQ. BELGAUM.
DIST: BELGAUM

4. SMT. BHARATHIBAI W/O MURLIDHAR PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MADKI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND
DIST: GULBARGA.

5. BABURAO S/O GYANOBA BHANGALE
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHAKNAL VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR.
                                          ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 SERVED)

     THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2014 PASSED IN R.A.
NO. 22/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
10.10.1999 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 266/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT BASAVAKALYAN.

     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

The Court notice was served on appellant Nos.2

and 3 and vide order dated 23.10.2020, the same is

reflected in the cause list. It appears that appellants

are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt