Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33646 (KAR)

MUSALAPPA v. SHAKIRA BI

RSA/1115/2009 · 2025-10-10

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42480 RSA No. 1115 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MUSALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YAERS, RETIRED TAHSILDAR. 2. BAKSHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RICE MERCHANT. 3. RAGHU S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SRINIVASA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. T LOKANATH EDITOR, SIDDINETRA WEKLY, CHALLAKERE - 577 522. 6. SMT. HANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 7. K SHIVAKUMAR S/O KUPPASWAMY, CHAKRAVARTHI WEEKLY, CHALLAKERE - 577 522. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42480 RSA No. 1115 of 2009 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 ARE R/O GANDHINAGAR, CHALLAKERE - 577 522. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SHAKIRA BI W/O CHMAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O GANDHINAGAR, CHALLAKERE TOWN. 2. TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, CHALLAKERE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHALLAKERE. 3. A.S.THIPPESWAMY S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, EX.MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, GANDHINAGAR, CHALLAKERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.RAM BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42480 RSA No. 1115 of 2009 ORDER Though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the Regular Second Appeal is filed back in the year 2009. Now we have almost completed the year 2023. The appeal is pending for almost fourteen years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4