Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2008 (INJ)
C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1431 OF 2008 (INJ)
IN R.S.A.NO.1430 OF 2008:
BETWEEN:
1. JAYARAJ S/O MURUGENDRAPPA DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SRIMATHI W/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK 1(b) VENKATESHA S/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTURIST Digitally signed R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR by SHARANYA T HOLALKERE TALUK Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1(c) KALPANA D/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O SADASHIVANAGARA BANGALORE.
1(d) MURUGESH S/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.G.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PERMITTED TO RETIRE)
AND:
1. D. KUBERAPPA S/O DODDAKALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. RUDRAPPA S/O NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. B. KUBERAPPA S/O BASAVANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4. KALLAPPA S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK
5. P. SIDDAPPA S/O ESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST DHARMADARSHI OF TEMPLE ALL ARE R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-07.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R4, R3 & R5-SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO.302/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2001 PASSED IN O.S.NO.487/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
HOLALKERE.
IN R.S.A.NO. 1431 OF 2008:
BETWEEN:
1 . G.M.THYAGARAJA S/O MURUGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK 2 . G.M. JAYARAJ S/O MURUGENDRAPPA DEAD BY LRS
2(a) SRIMATHI W/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK 2(b) VENKATESHA S/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK
2(c) KALPANA D/O LATE G.M.JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O SADASHIVANAGARA BANGALORE.
2(d) MURUGESH S/O LATE G.M. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.G.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PERMITTED TO RETIRE)
AND:
1. D. KUBERAPPA S/O DODDAKALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. RUDRAPPA S/O NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. B. KUBERAPPA S/O BASAVANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4. KALLAPPA S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O HIREYEMMIGANUR HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-07.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3 & R4-SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO.303/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.498/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
HOLALKERE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals has filed a memo for retirement along with the copy of the letter addressed to the appellants on 21.03.2023 and also produced copy of the postal receipt for having sent the notice and served the same on the appellant Nos.1 and 4. In respect of appellant Nos.2 and 3, the notice issued to the appellant No.2 returned with an endorsement that always absent and door locked and so also in respect of appellant No.3 also door locked and intimation was dropped.
2. Having considered the memo of retirement of the counsel for appellants and the notice has been served on appellant Nos.1 and 4 and they jointly represented through the very same counsel and having the knowledge of the death and also letter is also specific that to bring the legal representatives of the deceased, the details has to be given. Inspite of it, the counsel submits that the appellants have not given any instructions. Hence, appellants’ counsel is permitted to retire from the case. Inspite of notice was served on appellant Nos.1 and 4 also, they have not engaged any counsel and also not turned out to pursue the matter. Hence, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeals. 3. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution and in not taking steps.
The appeals against respondent No.1 is abated in both the appeals.
