Gangahanumakka vs Jahirunnisa
2023 Latest Caselaw 507 Kant

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1780/2017 (SP)


BETWEEN:

GANGAHANUMAKKA,
W/O GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED 67 YEARS,
R/AT SANNAPPANAPALYA,
HIREHALLI,
TUMKUR TALUK - 572 168.
                                      ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.K.N.SUBBAREDDY, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     JAHIRUNNISA,
       W/O MAHAMED ISMAIL,
       RAINA MANSION,
       KYTHASANDRA,
       CM EXTENSION,
       TUMKUR - 572 104.

2.     NISSAR AHMED,
       S/O MOHAMED ISMAIL,
       R/AT RAINA MANSION,
       KYTHASANDRA, 1ST MAIN,
       1ST CROSS, CM EXTENSION,
       TUMKUR TQ. - 572 104.
                           2



3.   MOHAMAD HUSSAIN @ PYARU SAB,
     S/O ABDUL RAHAMAN,
     R/O SANNAPPANAPALYA,
     HIREHALLI POST - 572 168,
     TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.

4.   MANSOOR AHAMED,
     S/O MAHAMAD HUSSAIN @ PYARU SAB,
     R/O SANNAPPANAPALYA,
     HIREHALLI POST - 572 168,
     TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.

5.   MUNAWAR AHAMAD,
     S/O MAHAMAD HUSSAIN @ PYARU SAB,
     WOODEN WORK SHOP,
     BEHIND HOTEL TAJ - 572 1014,
     KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR.

6.   GOWRAMMA,
     W/O GANGARANGAIAH,
     NEW HOUSE NO.333, 4TH CROSS,
     ANNAPOORNESWARI NAGARA,
     NAGARABHAVI, BANGALURU.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI.AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4)


     THIS   REGULAR   SECOND   APPEAL   IS   FILED   UNDER
SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2017 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.94/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2013
PASSED IN O.S. NO.102/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR.
                               3



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

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed in the year 2017 and listed for

fourth time for non compliance of office objections. Today

also there is no representation before the Court.

It appears that the appellant is not diligent in

pursuing the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for

non compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sac*