- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.5005/2009 BETWEEN: 1. Mahadevappa S/o Basappa Hanjagi Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business R/o Telagi Road, B Bagewadi-586214. 2. Sharanappa S/o Basappa Hanjagi Aged about 34 years Occ: Agriculture R/o Telagi Road, B Bagewadi-586214. 3. Siddawwa W/o Basappa Hanjagi Aged about 81 years Occ: Household Work R/o Telagi Road, B Bagewadi-586214. 4. Basamma D/o Basappa Hanjagi Aged about 46 years Occ: Household Work R/o Telagi Road, B Bagewadi-586214. .... Appellants (By Sri Prakash R. Kulkarni, Advocate-Absent) AND: 1. Malkappa S/o Basappa Hanjagi - 2 - Aged about 62 years Occ: Business R/o Telagi Road B Bagewadi-586214 Dist: Bijapur. 2. Shivappa S/o Basappa Hanjagi since deceased by Lrs. 2(a) Bourawwa W/o Shivappa Hanjagi Aged about 29 years, Occ: Household R/o Telagi Road, B-Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur. 2(b) Bagyashree D/o Shivappa Hanjagi, Age: 8 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Telagi Road, B-Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur. 2(c) Kavya D/o Shivappa Hanjagi, Age: 5 years, Occ: nil, R/o Telagi Road, B-Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur. Respondents No.2(b) & (c) are minors, Represented by their mother and Natural guardian respondent No.2(a) 3. Gourabai W/o Shankarappa Dharmashetty, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Household work, R/o Jalwad, Taluk: Sindagi-586201 Dist: Bijapur. 4. Shivamma W/o Bhimaraya Bandal Aged about 36 years Occ: Household work R/o Talikot, Taluk: Muddebiuhal-586212 Dist: Bijapur. - 3 - 5. Mallamma W/o Shanthappa Padashetty Aged about 34 years Occ: Household work R/o Sarwad –586201 Taluk: Bijapur. .... Respondents [By Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate for R1 R2 (a), R3, R4, R5 are served, R2(b) & (c) are minors, represented by R2(a)] This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 27.06.2008 passed in O.S.No.199/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Basavan Bagewadi, partly decreeing the suit. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T Despite the appeal having been dismissed earlier on 21.04.2014 for non-prosecution and being recalled thereafter, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant repeatedly. On 23.11.2016 also there was no representation and as such it was adjourned to today to provide an opportunity. Despite that, there is no representation for the appellant. It appears the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE swk