Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33227 (KAR)

SMT KALYANAMMA v. SMT MANJAMMA @ KAMALAMMA

RFA/1942/2017 · 2025-06-13

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20342 RFA No. 1942 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1942 OF 2017 (PA/DE/IN) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALYANAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT: KANIMINEKE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060. 2. SMT. SHOBHA ALIAS LAKSHMI DEVI, D/O LATE HANUMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT: KANIMINEKE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SURESH KUMAR.H.M., ADVOCATE FOR A1 [ABSENT]; APPELLANT NO.2 - ABSENT) AND: SMT. MANJAMMA @ KAMALAMMA, D/O LATE HANUMANHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: KANIMINEKE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERENDRA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR & VEERESH.K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20342 RFA No. 1942 of 2017 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FURHTER ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. Sri.Veerendra Kumar., counsel on behalf of Sri.H.B.Chandrashekar., for the respondent has appeared in person. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 05.07.2023, on that day, counsel Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry., was permitted to retire as counsel appearing for the appellants in the matter. The appeal is listed today. Appellant No.1 is represented by counsel Sri.Suresh Kumar.H.M. However, when the case is called, appellant No.1 is not represented. Appellant No.2 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor appeared before the Court as party in person. It appears that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20342 RFA No. 1942 of 2017 appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37