Dismissed¶¶37

Sri.Shridhar Bangera v. Mr.S.Ganesh Nayak

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2025RSA/2130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; arguing counsel absent both sessions; appeal abated qua deceased appellant No.1 (order dated 14.08.2025); Section 100 CPC regular second appeal; judgments below (O.S.No.4/2013 dt. 02.03.2020; R.A.No.139/2020 dt. 30.03.2021) left intact; DEC/INJ; Mangaluru D.K.; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; decided 23.08.2025 by V Srishananda J.; no merits argued, no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, as the learned counsel for the appellants was absent in the morning session and the arguing counsel remained absent even in the afternoon session despite the matter being passed over at the request of the junior advocate. ¶¶37

Sri.Shridhar Bangera Vs Mr.S.Ganesh Nayak — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33280 RSA No. 2130 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2130 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.SHRIDHAR BANGERA S/O LATE KORAGA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.22-8-1163(1), BHAVANI COMPUND, TAILORY ROAD, MULIHITHLU -575 001

¶10

MR.VASUDEV NAYAK S/O LATE KRISHNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

MRS. SABITHA W/O VASUDEV NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT D.NO 22-8-1163, BHAVANI COMPUND, TAILORY ROAD, MULIHITHLU -575001

¶14

MR MOHAN KUNDER S/O LATE KUNHANNA KOTTARY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶15

MRS LEELAVATHI W/O MR MOHAN KUNDER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33280 RSA No. 2130 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT D.NO.22-8-1162, BHAVANI COMPUND, TAILORY ROAD, MULIHITHLU -575001

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE –ABSENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.08.2025, APPEAL FILED BY A1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶21

AND:

¶22

MR S.GANESH NAYAK S/O LATE SUBRAYA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A BHOJA RAO LANE, DONGERKERY, MANGALURU

¶23

D K DISTRICT -575 003

¶24

MR K GOKULANANDA BHAKTHA S/O LATE DEVA RAO PATEL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A GOKAL NIVAS, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, KODIBAIL, MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-575 003

¶25

MR LAXMISHA YADIYAL B S/O LATE DEVA RAO PATEL, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶26

DR B MURALIDHARA YADIYAL S/O MR LAXMISHA YADIYAL B, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶27

NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT ‘CHETHANA’, D.NO.1-17-146/4, URWA CHILIMBI, MANGALURU-575 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33280 RSA No. 2130 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.No.139/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.4/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

This Court, on the last date of hearing noted that appellant No.1 is no more and for having not taken appropriate steps, dismissed the appeal as abated insofar as appellant No.1 is concerned.

¶35

Today, case is posted for addressing arguments on the merits of the appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants was absent in the morning. Matter was passed over to the afternoon session at the request of the junior advocate. Even in the afternoon session, the arguing counsel is absent.

¶37

Hence, appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶38

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶39

kcm/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri.Shridhar Bangera v. Mr.S.Ganesh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shridhar Bangera v. Mr.S.Ganesh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Lakshmaiah Vs Sri Venkataronappa

Smt. Shrimathi Vs Sri. N S Rajeeva

Parama Naika Vs Susheelamma

Mrs Bernadette Vasnaik Vs Philip Francis Gerard Sequeira

Sri Shanmugam Vs Smt. M D Raju Sulochana

Mr. Kjetil Sandvik Vs Nil