Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramanayak S/O. Dharamanayak Patil vs Smt. Sumitra W/O. Ramanayak Patil on 7 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2664-DB
RFA No. 100284 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100284 OF 2018 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMANAYAK S/O. DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
2. SRI. APPASAB @ SHIVANAYAK
S/O. DHARMANAYAK PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
3. SMT. ANNAKKA W/O. BABASAB DESAI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. RAMANAYAK S/O. DHARAMANAYAK PATIL,
CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
2024.02.08
12:08:56 +0530 4. SMT. MEERA W/O. YANAKANAGOUDA NAIK
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. GHODAGERI, TALUK: GOKAK,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-580032.
5. SMT. SUJATA W/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. RAMANAYAK
S/O. DHARAMANAYAK PATIL,
CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2664-DB
RFA No. 100284 of 2018
AND:
1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. RAMANAYAK PATIL
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
2. SMT. KASHIBAI W/O. SHIVANAYAK PATIL
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEGHOLD WORK
AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GANDHINAGAR HUBBALLI,
TALUK: HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580004.
SRI. RAJSHEKHAR S/O. LAXMANNAYAK PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
3. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANABHAVI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
4. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANABHAVI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
5. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. RAJSHEKHAR PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANABHAVI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
6. SRI. DEVARAJ S/O. RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANABHAVI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUN L.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.85/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2664-DB
RFA No. 100284 of 2018
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed as a consequence to the
judgment and decree dated 28.04.2017 passed in
O.S.No.85/2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM Dharwad.
2. The appeal was listed for hearing on the
previous day i.e., on 06.02.2024 and during the course of
hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that,
appellants have issued the notice dated 02.03.2020 to the
counsel and has requested him to return back all the
papers pertaining to the above appeal along with No
Objection. In agreement to the same, the learned counsel
for the appellants has returned the entire case papers to
the appellants along with No Objection on 10.03.2020
itself.
3. Further, learned counsel for the appellants
would also submit that, since the parties have already
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2664-DB
taken back the entire file along with NOC, he is not in a
position to argue the appeal on merits.
4. We have perused the notice and document
produced by the appellants. This appeal is of the year
2018 and the counsels now on-record have already issued
the No Objection and returned back the entire appeal
papers to the appellants in the year 2020 itself. Further,
till date the appellants neither have engaged the services
of any counsel nor appeared before this Court in-person.
5. Therefore, in the given peculiar circumstances,
we are constrained to hold that appellants are not
interested in prosecuting the appeal and hence, the appeal
is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
