The High Court held that Second Appeal No.1199 of 2006 was dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellants failed to appear despite receipt of court notice and multiple listings.
The appeal is dismissed for no-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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1199 OF 2006
Between:
(appellants served)
…Appellants
2
And:
All are residents at Shedbal Taluk: Athani District: Belgaum Pin 591 304
…Respondents
(by Shri Sanjay S. Katageri, Advocate for C/R 1 to 5)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under filed Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2006 passed in RA No.53 of 2005 on the file of the
3
Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Athani partly allowing the Appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2005 passed in OS No.63 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Athani.
This Regular Second Appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
None appears for the appellant. Leaned counsel for the
respondents present.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
Shri Balasab S/o Chandu Khande
Sri Ganapati S/o Chandu Khande
Sri Annasab S/o Chandu Khande
Shri Appasab S/o Dattu Khande
Shri Mahadev S/o Dattu Khande
Shri Sukhdev S/o Dattu Khande
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
