Karnataka High Court
Shaik Mahmood vs Khustejabi on 15 March, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.944 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SHAIK MAHMOOD
S/O BATTI SABJAN SAB
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. ZEENATHUNNISA
W/O LATE SHAIK MEHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED
S/O LATE SHAIK MEHMOOD
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
DIED ON 24.01.2019
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH 2. BASHEERA BANU
COURT OF
KARNATAKA W/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 40 YEARS
3. ZEESHAN
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 22 YEARS
4. MUSKAN
D/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 18 YEARS
-2-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
5. SALMAN
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 20 YEARS
6. IMRAN
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 16 YEARS
REP BY HER MOTEHR & NATURAL GUARDIAN
7. MOHAMMED HASHMI
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 14 YEARS
REP BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN
8. MOINUDDIN
S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED
AGED 12 YEARS
REP BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN
9. SRI ALTHAF AHMED
S/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
10. SRI AKHLAK AHMED
S/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
11. SMT. REHAN BANU
D/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
12. SMT. SHABEENA BANU
D/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
13. SMT. FARZANA BANU
D/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-3-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
14. SMT. NAZNEEN BANU
D/O LATE SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF D B ROAD
SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
15. MOHAMMED YUSUF
S/O BATTI SABJAN SAB
AGED 56 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O K K ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPTA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
16. GULAM MUSTAFA
S/O BAGGI SABJAN SAB
AGED 55 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O D B ROAD, 1ST CROSS
SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
17. MUSTAQ AHAMED
S/O SHAIK MAHMOOD
AGED 46 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
DIED ON 27.01.2019
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
-4-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
AND:
1. KHUSTEJABI
W/O SYED UMAR SAB
AGED 56 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
R/O SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577428
2. ZAIBUNNIS
S/O UMAR SAB
AGED 52 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
R/O SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577428
3. AMEENABI
W/O ANWAR SAB
AGED 44 YEARS
CHIKKA JAMBOOR VILLAGE
SHIKARIPURA-577428
4. ROSHAN BI
W/O SYED SALEHA
AGED 40 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
HIREKASAVIM VILLAGE
SORABA TALUK-577419
5. FATHIMA BI
W/O KHALLEL SAB
AGED 38 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
ULAVI VILLAGE
SORABA TALUK-577419
6. ABJAL UNNISA
W/O ABDUL ALEEM
-5-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
AGED 36 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TLAUK-577428
7. MOHAMMED ASHFAQ
S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED 32 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN
SHIKARIPURA TLAUK-577427
8. SHAMSUNNISA
W/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED 56 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
R/O D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
9. MOHAMMED HANEEF
S/O BABBI SABJAN SAB
AGED 52 YEARS
AGEICULTURIST
D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA-577427
10. RIYAZ AHAMED
S/O MOHAMMED SHABBIAR LATE
AGED 26 YEARS
MANDAKKI BATTI
D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
11. B S THEERTHAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O NERALAGI VILLAGE
-6-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
UDUGANI HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
12. B S BASAVARJAAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED 29 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O NERALAGI VILLAGE
UDUGANI HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577447
13. RIZVANA @ FATHIMA
W/O MOHAMMED YUSUF
AGED 54 YEARS
D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
14. PERVEEZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF
AGED 30 YEARS
D B ROAD, SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
RSA No. 944 of 2019
ORDER
The counsel fro the appellants is absent and the
previous occasion also the counsel for the appellants was
absent.
2. This Court vide order dated 01.03.2023 noted
that this appeal was filed in the year 2019 but till date
office objections are not complied with. However, in the
ends of justice, two weeks time was granted for the same
on cost of Rs.1,000/- and also made it clear that if the
counsel for the appellants failed to do so till the next date
of hearing, the matter will be dismissed for non-
prosecution. Inspite of the said peremptory order, the
office objections are not complied and cost is also not
paid. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
