Karnataka High Court

SECOND APPEAL 2946 of 2007 on 26 September 2005

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4296RSA No. 2946 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH -REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2946 OF 2007 (PAR)BETWEEN: 1. CHIDANANDA S/O. RAMAPPA GOKAVI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND EX-SERVICEMAN, 2. NIRVANAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GOKAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND MEDICAL PRACTIONER, 3. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. BHIMAGOWDA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PARAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, Digitally signed byHUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591107. MOHANKUMAR BSHELAR…APPELLANTS Location: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA(BY SRI. S.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE) DHARWAD BENCHDate: 2025.03.0716:18:45 +0530AND:1. SRI. VITHAL, S/O. RAMAPPA GOKAVI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 2. SRI. NIJALINGA, S/O. RAMAPPA GOKAVI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: PARAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591107.

Page 1 of 2

3. SRI. ANANDA S/O. RAMAPPA GOKAVI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROP: BASAVA MEDICAL STORES, MALI ALLI, BELGAUM-590002.

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIRANYAKESI SAKKARE KHARKHANE NIYAMITHA, SANKESWARA-591313, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2-R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) HUKKERI AT HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.80/2005 DATED 25[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2007 AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT HUKKERI IN O.S.NO.54/2004 DATED 26.09.2005 AND ALSO ALLOW THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

None appears for the appellants.

The matter called in the morning session as well as in the afternoon session; however, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Same

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4296RSA No. 2946 of 2007

would indicate that, appellants are not interested to prosecute the appeal.

Taking into consideration that appeal is of the year 2007 and on account of non-appearance of the advocate on behalf of the appellants, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead