Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47060 (KAR)

SRI SYED AMEENULLA HUQ v. SRI D M PARVEEZ

RSA/411/2024 · 2026-01-29

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5042 RSA No. 411 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI SYED AMEENULLA HUQ S/O SYED ANNWAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O MARKET ROAD SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI H DAYANANDA SARASWATHI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI D M PARVEEZ S/O DASTHAGIRI SAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O AMBEDKAR EXTENSION SORABA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 2. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O K MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI K MADAPPA S/O KADAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI K M SUDHEER S/O LATE K MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5042 RSA No. 411 of 2024 4. SMT POORANIMA D/O LATE K MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3 & 4 ARE R/O MARUR ROAD NEAR SRIDEVI SHAMIYANA SORABA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 5. SRI SYED IRSHAD S/O SYED UBEDULLA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O KANUKERI ROAD SORABA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.53/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.193/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5042 RSA No. 411 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 5th time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellant was directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12