IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.48 OF 2014

BETWEEN :

SRI MAHADEVANAIKA S/O AJJI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SARAGUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADV.)

AND :

1. SRI SIDDAIAH @ AJJI SIDDAIAH S/O LATE AJJI AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS R/AT SARAGUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

2. SIDDARAJUNAIKA S/O AJJI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT SARAGUR VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

- 2 -

3. KAMAIAH S/O LATE KAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE BESTARA STREET TALUK-571 430 DISTRICT

4. SMT.SIDDAMMA W/O LATE RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT SARAGUR VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

5. SMT.RAJAMMANNI W/O LATE SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT THADAGUNI VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

6. SMT.MADAMMA W/O MADA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HARALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

7. SMT.PUTTAMADAMMA W/O MALLE DODDAMADANAIKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SARAGUR VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK-571 440

- 3 -

8. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O KAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A BESTARA STREET BELAKAVADI VILLAGE B.G.PURA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430 . …RESPONDENTS

. . . .

THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43, RULE-1(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 11.09.2012 PASSED IN R.A.64/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT KOLLEGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:09.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S.46/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This Appeal was filed on 7.2.2013 with defects and delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. By the reason of the impugned judgment, the Court below allowed the

- 4 -

Appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the suit within six months period from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. In the absence of stay of the impugned judgment, the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that, the trial Court having taken O.S. No.

46/2005, has dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.

3. In the circumstances, this appeal does not survive for consideration as the impugned order has spent itself on account of the trial Court having taken up the suit and dismissed it. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the IAs filed in this Appeal also do not survive for consideration.

Sd/- JUDGE

ckl