ABDUL WAHEED S/O ABDUL RAJAK v. S AVULAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA
RSA/955/2012 · 2025-01-06
T G Shivashankare Gowda
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24289 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24289 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:88 RSA No. 955 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2012 (INJ) BETWEEN:
ABDUL WAHEED S/O ABDUL RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT BAMBU BAZAR, CHINTHAMANI TOWN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S R SREENIVASAMURTHY,ADV. [ABSENT]) AND:
1.
S AVULAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BAMBU BAZAR
CHINTHAMANI TOWN
2.
RASHID DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(a) SMT. HASINA W/O LATE RASHID
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2(b) ANSAR PASHA S/O LATE RASHID AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2(c) APSAR PASHA S/O ABDUL RASHID AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2(d) SMT. NOORI D/O RASHID AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT BAMBU BAZAR
CHINTHAMANI TOWN
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SYED SHAN ISMAIL QUADRI, ADV. FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.10.2014 NOTICE TO R2(b-d) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED) Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:88 RSA No. 955 of 2012
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 22.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.1.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.72/1997 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.), CHINTHAMANI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA ORAL JUDGMENT None appears for the appellant even in the second time.
2. On perusal of the order sheet would indicate that from day one of filing of the appeal, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. It shows that the appellant is not diligent in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is abated as against respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
3. In view of the appeal being abated against respondent No.1-plaintiff, the appeal will not survive for
consideration and is dismissed accordingly. SD/- (T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26