Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72677 (KAR)

SRI M P RAMA REDDY v. SRI C NARAYANA REDDY

RSA/291/2012 · 2025-07-24

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28521 RSA No. 291 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M P RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O PEDDAVENKATARAYAPPA CHOKKNAHALL VILLAGE & POST CHIKALANERPU HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT -563 155 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI C NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NARASIMHA REDDY CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE YENIGEDALE POST CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 563 155 2. SMT SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O VENKTA REDDY SETTINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE NADAMPALLI POST, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28521 RSA No. 291 of 2012 CHILAKALANERPUR POST CHINTHMANI TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563 155 3. SRI VENUGOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O SUBBA REDDY C KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE MADAKASIR TALUK ANANTAPUR DISRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 636 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 NOTICE SERVED V/O DATED 19.06.2024, APPEAL AGAINST R-3 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED) RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.08.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.246/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHINTAMANI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28521 RSA No. 291 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT None appeared for the appellant in the morning as well as in the afternoon session. 2. The appeal is of the year 2012 and is not yet admitted. There is delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. It appears the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 3. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39