Dismissed

Nagendrappa v. Thippeswamy

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023RSA/630/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal. It abated the appeal against the deceased Respondent No.1 due to his death without substitution, and dismissed the appeal against Respondents 2 to 4 for lack of proceedings after a peremptory extension order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against Respondent No.1 is abated. The appeal against Respondents 2 to 4 is dismissed. Incidental applications are disposed of.

Nagendrappa Vs Thippeswamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 630 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

NAGENDRAPPA S/O. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT ARIHATA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577 501.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. B S HADIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1. THIPPESWAMY

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RED. KEB ENGINEER, R/AT 5^TH CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577501.

¶16

KRISHNAKUMARI D/O. KARISHIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NEAR CHALLAKERE TOLL GATE, CHITRADURGA TOWN -577501.

¶17

SYYED SANULLA S/O. SYYED GOUSPEER, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE,

¶18

¶19

RSA No. 630 of 2017

¶20

CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.

¶21

SYYED SANAULLA S/O. SYYED GOUSPEER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: VEGETABLE BUSINESS, R/AT NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.87/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.

¶24

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This Court vide order dated 04.04.2019 granted time of two weeks to do the needful and also made it clear that failing which, the appeal against respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall stand dismissed. Inspite of two weeks’ time was granted on 04.04.2019, till date, no steps have been taken against respondent Nos.2 to 4. In view of the peremptory order dated 04.04.2019, the appeal against respondent Nos.2 to 4 stands dismissed.

¶27

¶28

RSA No. 630 of 2017

¶29

Notice issued against respondent No.1 was

¶30

returned with an endorsement as ‘party dead’ and the same was reported in the year 2017 itself but till date, steps are not taken against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. Hence, the appeal against respondent No.1 is abated. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶31

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Nagendrappa v. Thippeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendrappa v. Thippeswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Annaiah Reddy Vs Shri. Barly Doddappaiah

Sri Krishnoji Rao Vs Smt Gowramma

Smt Nagarathna Vs Smt Alamelu Thatachar

Jogaiah Vs Krishnappa

Basavegowda Vs N M Prakash

Nethravathi Vs Nagarajagowda