Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32834 (KAR)

SRI K.V. CHANDRASHEKAR SETTY v. SRI MUDDUKRISHNAPPA

RSA/1427/2013 · 2025-03-12

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10480 RSA No. 1427 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI K.V. CHANDRASHEKAR SETTY S/O LATE V. KRISHNAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.249, DAVID ROAD BANGARPET TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …APPELLANT [BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. SRI MUDDUKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. JAGADISH KUMNAR S/O MUDDUKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT SOREGOWDANAKOTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 4. SMT. A.K. MUNIYAMMA S/O A.K. CHALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT MALYANAGURKI VILLAGE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10480 RSA No. 1427 of 2013 ROBERTSONPET HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 & R2 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 22.04.2024-APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 24.04.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KGF., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.207/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., BANGARPET. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation. 2. Appeal was admitted on 07.06.2018. Till date, paper book is not filed. On perusal of ordersheet, it is seen that even on earlier occasions, there was no representation on behalf of appellant. This would indicate that appellant is not pursuing appeal diligently. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12