Dismissed¶33

Smt Jayamma v. Dr B Nataraju

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025RSA/766/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 766 of 2020 (RES), High Court of Karnataka (NC: 2025:KHC:46284), decided 13-11-2025 by Jyoti M, J.; appeal under Section 100 / Order 42 Rule 1 CPC dismissed for non-prosecution at admission stage after five years' pendency; appellants Jayamma, Chaluvaraju and Manjula unrepresented (counsel H.V. Praveen Gowda absent); respondents Dr. B. Nataraju and B. Shivananjappa through Sri. Arjun for Sri. M.S. Narayan; IAs disposed, interim orders discharged.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution: despite the matter being called twice the appellants were not represented, and they appear not interested in prosecuting the appeal. ¶33

Smt Jayamma Vs Dr B Nataraju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46284 RSA No. 766 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2020 (RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. CHALUVARAJU S/O. LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.385, 8^TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. H.V.PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶16

AND:

¶17

DR.B.NATARAJU S/O. LATE B.BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.B.2/326, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46284 RSA No. 766 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

B.SHIVANANJAPPA, S/O. LATE B.BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.536, 5^TH 'A' CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, 9^TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100, ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

¶25

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Though matter called twice, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶28

Sri.Arjun., counsel on behalf of Sri.M.S.Narayan., for the respondents has appeared in person and submits that a memo has been filed and the same may be placed on record.

¶29

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46284 RSA No. 766 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in 2020. Now we are in November, 2025. The appeal is pending for five years. As already noted above, though matter called twice, the appellants are not represented. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶34

Because of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶35

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶36

TKN/MRP

¶37

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt Jayamma v. Dr B Nataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma v. Dr B Nataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K B Gadigeppa Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B Shivanna Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Mangala Vs the Senior Divisional Controller

B Venkatesh Vs the Chief Accounts Officer

Vinpla Plating Private Limited Vs Rapsri Engineering Products Company Limited

M/S Menzies Aviation Bobba Bengaluru Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited