RFA filed under CPC sections 96 and 41 Rule 1 & 2 against a decree in an original suit. The appellants were absent when the appeal was called; the court issued a one-line order dismissing the appeal 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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
R.F.A.No.373/2005(DEC)
BETWEEN
NANJANGUD TALUK-571 301
S/O CHIKKAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NANJANGUD TALUK-571 301
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.V.RAMAN, ADVOCATE -ABSENT)
AND
2
VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040
2 . R SHIVAPPA
3
HARADANAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJA NAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE ALL R/O TORAVALLI VILLAGE KOWLANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK DISTRICT -MYSORE PIN CODE 571 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M SIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; SRI S.G.KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A AND B);
4
R2(1), R2(2), R2(3), R2(4) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 R 1 & 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 13.1.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.85/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & JMFC, NANJANGUD, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Case called thrice, none appears for the appellants.
Counsel for respondents present.
Paper books are not filed in an appeal of the year 2005.
Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
NAGASUNDRA SWAMY
T C NAGARAJ
K S SHIVASWAMY
SMT.K.S.SUNANDAMMA
SMT.K.S.SUMITHRADEVI
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
