Ramappa S/O Kadappa Budi @ Boodi vs Kadappa S/O Siddappa Budi @ Boodi
2023 Latest Caselaw 9365 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Ramappa S/O Kadappa Budi @ Boodi vs Kadappa S/O Siddappa Budi @ Boodi on 5 December, 2023

                                                            -1-
                                                                  NC: 2023:KHC-D:14202
                                                                       RSA No. 5690 of 2013




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

                                       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                                    BEFORE
                                     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                                    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5690 OF 2013
                              BETWEEN:
                              1.    SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. KADAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                              2.    SRI. BHIMAPPA RAMAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                                    BOTH R/AT MUGALKHOD, TQ MUDHOL,
                                    DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313.
                                                                               ...APPELLANTS
                              (APPELLANTS NOS.1 AND 2 ABSENT)
                              AND:
                              1.    SRI. KADAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                              2.    SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                              3.    SRI. APPASI S/O. SIDDAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                              4.    SMT. LAXMAWWA D/O. SIDDAPPA BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                                    ALL R/AT MUGALKHOD, TQ. MUDHOL,
           Digitally signed
           by VISHAL
                                    DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313.
VISHAL     NINGAPPA
           PATTIHAL           5.    SMT. RUKMAWWA W/O. PARASAPPA KADAPATTI,
NINGAPPA   Date:
PATTIHAL   2023.12.07               AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/AT SHIROL, TQ. MUDHOL,
           13:25:29                 DIST. BAGALKOTE-587310.
           +0530

                              6.    SMT. SAYAWWA D/O. SIDDAPPA BUDI @ BOODI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                              7.    SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SADASHIV KADAPATTI,
                                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                              8.    SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA GULED,
                                    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                                    C/O. NEELAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA BUDI
                                    RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ARE R/AT MUGALKHOD,
                                    TQ: MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587313.
                                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                              (BY    SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
                                    -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC-D:14202
                                                 RSA No. 5690 of 2013




     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.05.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.
56/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MUDHOL,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 25.08.2007 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.
108/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
MUDHOL, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION.

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

                              JUDGMENT

This Court on 29.01.2021 held that the Court notice

issued to the appellant is served on the appellant and directed

to show the name of the appellants in the cause list.

The appellants name have been shown in the cause list

and though, the notice was duly served on them on

18.09.2020, there is no representation on behalf of the

appellants. It appears that the appellants are not interested to

prosecute the matter.

This Court has no other option than to dismiss the appeal

for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE PJ, CT: UMD