Shri. Narasing Gangaram Patil vs Shri. Dhondiba S/O Gangaram Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 12614 Kant

                             1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100418 OF 2017 (INJ)


BETWEEN:

SHRI. NARASING GANGARAM PATIL
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

1A)    SHRI.GANGARAM S/O NARASING PATIL,
       AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: MUTAGA,
       TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

1B)    SHRI.GANAPATI S/O NARASING PATIL,
       AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: MUTAGA,
       TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.     SHRI.JAYANT S/O NARASING PATIL,
       AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: MUTAGA,
       TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A.B. NESARGI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)

AND:

SHRI. DHONDIBA S/O. GANGARAM PATIL
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: LAXMI GALLI, MUTAGA,
AND ALSO AT: GAJANAN ROAD,
3RD GATE, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
                                           ... RESPONDENT
                              2




      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2017, PASSED
IN R.A.NO.33/1995, BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGVI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.06.1995, PASSED IN O.S.NO.24/1993 BY THE I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT, 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 appellant.

The captioned appeal is listed for orders regarding

non compliance of office objections for second time.

The appeal is filed in the year 2017. We are in the

month of October, 2022. So far the office objections are

not complied with and there is no representation on

behalf of appellant though the matter is called twice.

Hence the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution and

also for non compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE MRK