Regular second appeal filed against a judgment setting aside a prior decree was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellants' counsel was absent without representation.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RSA No.200302/2015
BETWEEN:
... Appellants
(By Sri Santosh S. Gogi & Sri Sharath S. Gogi, Advocates for M/s. Gogi and Gogi-Absent)
AND:
Kusuma Bai W/o Ekanath Rao, Age about: 77 years, Occ: Household, R/o Azad Nagar, Raichur-585401.
…Respondent
(By Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, praying to allow this appeal and to set aside the
2
judgment and decree dated 11/08/2015 passed in R.A.No.14/2015 by the II Additional District Judge, Raichur setting aside in part the judgment and decree dated 01/04/2015 passed in O.S.No.98/2013 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Raichur. In so far as rejection of the prayer for specific performance of the contract is concerned.
This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Counsel for appellants is absent. No
representation.
Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
swk
Mallikarjunagouda S/o Raghavendragouda
Durgesh Gouda S/o Sanna Shivareddy
Kusuma Bai W/o Ekanath Rao
N.K. Sudhindara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
