Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Thippeswamy vs Smt. U. Suvarnamma on 9 February, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 2532 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2532 OF 2017 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT BELAGERE VILLAGE
PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. U. SUVARNAMMA
W/O K.G.NAGABHUSHANAIAH
Digitally signed by
SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/O. PARASHURAMPURA VILLAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
2. SRI M. MUDDAVEERAPPA
S/O LATE S. UMAPATHIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BELAGERE VILLAGE
PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
-2-
RSA No. 2532 of 2017
3. SRI U. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE S. UMAPATHIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ADVOCATE & AGRICULTURIST
R/O BELAGERE VILLAGE
PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522
(RESPONDENT NO.2 IS A LUNATIC,
REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER
I.E., RESPONDENT NO.3)
4. SMT. U.SARVAMANGALAMMA
W/O T.N. SURYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O THIPPAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
Y.N.HOSAKOTE HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202
5. SMT. U. VIMALAMMA
W/O GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O GAREHATTI
CHITRADURGA CITY-577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2017 PASSED IN
RA NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.01.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.43/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHALLAKERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 2532 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2. This Court vide order dated 24.01.2023, taken note
of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant was
absent on 13.12.2022. However, on that day, one more
opportunity was given and ordered to post the matter on
24.01.2023. On that day also, there was no representation and
this Court made an observation that the appellant is not
diligent in pursuing the matter. However, in the ends of justice,
one more opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the
appellant to proceed with the matter and also it is made clear
that if the learned counsel for the appellant does not appear on
the next date of hearing, the appeal will be dismissed for non-
prosecution.
3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of
the appellant. Hence, it is clear that the appellant is not
interested in pursuing the matter.
4. In view of the peremptory order dated 24.01.2023;
the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
RSA No. 2532 of 2017
5. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017
for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CP
