Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2971 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2023
-1-
RSA No. 7125 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
RSA NO. 7125 OF 2011 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. KALLAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIRI.
2. SANJEEV S/O SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TO & DIST: YADGIRI.
...APPELALNTS
(NOTICE RETURNED AS UNSERVED)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 1. SHIVAPPA S/O KALLAPPA ANGADI
Location: HIGH AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
COURT OF R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
KARNATAKA
TQ & DIST: YADGIR AT PRESENT BIJAPUR.
2. SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR.
3. BASAVANTHARAYA
S/O HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR.
-2-
RSA No. 7125 of 2011
4. AMEENREDDY S/O SIDDALINGAPPA POLICE PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
STATION AREA OF YADGIRI TOWN
TQ & DIST: YADGIR.
5. VISHWANATHREDDY
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA POLICE PATIL
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR.
6. VENKATREDDY S/O BASAVANTHRARA POLICE PATIL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ANOOR (K) VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. B.D. HANGARKI ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)
THIS RSA IS FILLED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING THAT THE SECOND APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.01.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2010 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) YADGIR, BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 12.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 149/2006 BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), YADGIR AND CONSEQUENTLY
DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS WITH COST THROUGHT,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 7125 of 2011
JUDGMENT
1. The Court notice was ordered to the appellants since
their counsel had been elevated as a judge of this Court.
Court notice sent by the registrar have been returned with
the endorsement that they are not residing in the address
given in the appeal memo. The registrar would be unable
to secure the address of the appellants and would have to
be go by the address i.e., mentioned in the appeal memo.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also
submits that he is not aware about the whereabouts of the
appellants who are his children as the first respondent is
not in good terms with them. In this situation, this Court
has no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE MSR
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!