First appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction over property. With appellants absent and unrepresented despite notice, the court dismissed the appeal for default.
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 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100181 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.28 10:34:13 +0530
AGED: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 20/C, GURURAJ COLONY, RAJWADA COMPOUND, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590001.
…APPELLANTS
(APPELLANTS - ABSENT)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.283/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KHANAPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
None appears for the appellants, and in fact, none appeared for the appellants even on the previous hearing date. This Court’s order on the previous hearing date reads as under:
“The learned counsel on record for the appellants has filed memo for retirement stating, amongst others, that his tentative instructions are that the first appellant has died but the other appellants have not given instructions on legal representatives to be brought on record and that even the legal representatives have not contacted.
The learned counsel for the appellants has also attached postal covers to demonstrate that appropriate intimation is caused to the appellants for instructions.
It is seen from these returned postal covers that notices by the learned counsel are returned with the endorsement that the ‘addressees have left’. This Court must opine that the counsel has done their most and there must be an order accepting the memo of retirement.
Further, this Court is of the view that if the appellants do not make alternative arrangements for their representation, there must be orders for dismissal of the appeal for default. The office must show the
names of the appellants in the cause list. It is ordered accordingly, and the office is directed to re-list this appeal on 27.08.2024.”
It is obvious that the concerned are not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore, the appeal stands
dismissed.
Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
Sd/(C.M.JOSHI) JUDGE
RSH / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Ashok s/o Narayan Jadhav
Smt. Geeta w/o Ashok Jadhav (since deceased, by her LRs)
Priyanka w/o Chetan Ajrekar
Rahul s/o Ashok Jadav
Shri Arun s/o Narayan Jadhav
Smt. Anju d/o Narayan Jadhav
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
