The court dismissed a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC for non-prosecution. No representation appeared from the appellant despite two calls for hearing over one year after filing.
Regular Second 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 DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2610 OF 2007 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DURGAMMA W/O HADI NAIK AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O BADDUKULI, SHIRALI, BHATKAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT REP. BY GPA HOLDER SHANIYARA HONNANAIK AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O.SHIRALI VILLAGE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
2
| 1C. | SMT SUKRI W/O MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O: BADDULKULI, CHITRAPUR, BHATKAL TALUK-581330. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 2 . | SUKRAYYA NAGAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O: BUDDUKULI, SHIRALI, BHATKAL TALUK-581330. |
|
| 3. | SURSH S/O NAGAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O BADDULKULI, SHIRALI, BHATKAL TALUK-581330. |
|
| 4. | IRAYYA S/O NAGAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O BADDUKULI, SHIRALI, BHATKAL TALUK-581330. |
… RESPONDENTS |
| (R1( | C), R2 – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; | |
| R3 A | ND R4 – NOTICE SERVED.) |
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.08.2007, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HONAVAR, IN R.A.NO.101/2001, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.1996, PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, AT BHATKAL, IN O.S.NO.100/1993, AND DISMISS THE SUIT TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC.,.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Though matter is called twice, there is no
representation on behalf of appellant.
The captioned appeal is listed in until disposal list. On 02.11.2022, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of appellant. Today also there is no representation on behalf of appellant.
As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in the year 2007. Now we are in the month of November 2022. As already noted above, though matter is called yesterday and today, there is no representation on behalf of appellant. Hence, this Regular
Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
MRK
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Durgamma W/o Hadi Naik
Shaniyar Iranaik
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
