Ashok Jyotiram Salunke vs Shankar S/O. Tukaram Salunke
2022 Latest Caselaw 12641 Kant

                             1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100467 OF 2018 (PAR)


BETWEEN:

1.     ASHOK JYOTIRAM SALUNKE
       AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
       DIST:DHARWAD.

2.     PRAMOD @ PRAVEEN JYOTIRAM SALUNKE
       AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: KUNDGOL,TQ: KUNDGOL,
       DIST: DHARWAD.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH S. UDIKERI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) )

AND:

1.     SHANKAR S/O TUKARAM SALUNKE
       AGE:71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
       DIST: DHARWAD.

2.     SMT JANABAI W/O MARUTI JADAVA,
       AGE:73 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O. MANJUNATH NAGAR,
       HAVERI,TQ AND DIST:HAVERI.

3.     SHIVAJI S/O. RAJARAM JADAVA
       AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: MARATHA GALLI, HUBBALLI,
       TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
                              2




4.   SMT. PUSHPA
     W/O SUBRAMANYA SURVE
     AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SHAMANUR ROAD,
     NEAR LAXMI FLOOR MILL, DAVANAGERE,
     TQ AND DSIT: DAVANAGERE.

5.   SHRIKANT S/O SHIVAJI JADAVA
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
     R/O: MARATHA GALLI, HUBBALLI,
     TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

6.   SHOBHA D/O SHIVAJI JADAVA
     AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: MARATHA GALLI, HUBBALLI,
     TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

7.   PANDURANG S/O SHIVAJI JADAVA
     AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: MARATHA GALLI, HUBBALLI,
     TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2018, PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNDGOL, IN
R.A.NO.70/2016, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 15.02.2016, PASSED IN O.S.NO.7/2004, ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNDGOL, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN
O.S.NO.7/2004, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
KUNDGOL, 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 the appellant.

The appeal is filed in the year 2018. The appeal is

listed for orders regarding non compliance of office

objections for fourth time. As already noted above, the

matter is called twice, there is no representation on

behalf of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed for non

prosecution and also for non compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MRK