Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25596 (KAR)

HARUN SAIT v. ZAKIYA JAN

RSA/1141/2013 · 2025-04-25

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17143 RSA No. 1141 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. HARUN SAIT S/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR, 2. ABDUL RAZAK SAIT S/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 3. MOHSIN SAIT S/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 4. MH HANIFF SAIT S/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 5. ABDUL RASHEED S/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 6. ZUBEDA BI D/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 7. FARIDA BI D/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 8. SEEMA BANU D/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17143 RSA No. 1141 of 2013 9. ABIDA BANU D/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR 10. YASIM BANU D/O LATE ABDUL RAHAMAN SAIT MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT DOOR NO. 191/A BADA MAKAN LAYOUT, OLD MYSORE BANGALORE ROAD, MYSORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR., ADV. [ABSENT]) AND: 1. ZAKIYA JAN D/O LATE NAZIR AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. ALLA BAKSH S/O NAZIR AHMED MAJOR BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO.104 LIG, CITB, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-19 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADV. FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 11.3.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.258/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1369/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17143 RSA No. 1141 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for respondent no.1 present. None for appellants. On perusal of previous order sheet, it would indicate absence of learned counsel for appellants. Even cost imposed on adjournment sought for is not paid. This would indicate that appellants are not pursuing appeal diligently. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18