B.V.SHIVARUDRAPPA v. VIJAYAKUMARI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
appeal is dismissed for non prosecution
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Despite the best efforts made by learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are not responding to the phone calls and letters said to have been addressed by the counsel for the appellant. Appeal is of the year 2014. This Court does not find…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1138 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: B.V.SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O LATE B.R.VERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHAVIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELANGALA TALUK (BY SMT.E.R.PANKAJAMANI, ADV. FOR PROPOSED A1 (A TO C)) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
#1. VIJAYAKUMARI W/O SATISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHAVANIKERE VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
#2. SARVAMANGALA W/O RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, PRASANNA ANJANEYA TRUST, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30304 RSA No. 1138 of 2014 HC-KAR
#3. B.V.LOKESH S/O LATE B.R.VERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, M.E.I GORGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE.
#4. B.V.UMESHM S/O B.R.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, P.C.2375, POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE, C.O.D.VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, (M.T.SECTION), PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE.
#5. INDIRA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABUOT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDIRANAGAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK.
#6. RUDRA MURTHY @ GUNDA S/O LATE B.R.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS ROAD, CONTRACTOR SHIVASWAMY BUILDING, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, PRASANNA ANJANEYA TRUST, NELAMANGALA TALUK
#7. K.LALITHA PRAKASH W/O C.R.PRAKASH, AGED ABUOT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44, 10TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30304 RSA No. 1138 of 2014 HC-KAR BANGALORE-78 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D PRABHAKAR FOR R1.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.03.2014 IN R.A.No.3/2012 PASSED BY THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NELAMANGALA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the proposed appellants submits that it is informed to her that the dispute between the parties is settled.
#2. Despite the best efforts made by learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are not responding to the phone calls and letters said to have been addressed by the counsel for the appellant. Appeal is of the year 2014. This Court does not find any reason to adjourn the matter. The appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed for non prosecution
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.