IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO. 12 1/2005 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ASHABI W/O GOUSEMOHADDINSAB SHATHSANADI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. SHIRAGERI, TQ: HIREKERUR. 2. SMT. MAHABOOBI W/O ABDULHANEFSAB KHATEEB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR. 3. SMT. TAHIRABI W/O. NOORULLA PATHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR. 4. SMT. BALAKSHBI W/O. MAHABOOBSAB KHAJI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. BARLAND ROAD, MYSORE KHANA, DAVANAGERE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.L PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANVERSAB S/O. GOUSESAB PATIL @ KODAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2 2. KHADERPATEL GOUSESAB PATIL @ KODAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS: 2A) SAHIDABANU W/O. KHADARSAB PATIL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2B) NAVEENTAJBI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 2C) MANSURSAB, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 2D) VASIMSAB, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 2E) SHISINTAJBI, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 2C TO 2E ARE ALL MINORS, R/BY THEIR MOTHER SMT. SAHIDABANU, RESPONDENT NO.2A. 3. SAIYADSAB S/0 GOUSESAB PATEL KODAD, ALL ARE R/O.: YALIWAL, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SMT. MAIMUNNISA, W/O. MOHAMMADHANEEFSAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 5. SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA W/O ALLABAS DALAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. RANEBENNUR. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI FOR R.1, R.4 R.2(A) ABATED, R.2(B) PARTY LEF1 KNOWN, R3 SERVED, R.5 NOT KNOWN) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W 0 41 R 1 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 7-2-2003 PASSED IN OS.NO. 49/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & PRL.JMFC, RANEBENNUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This Court by order dated 12-4-2005 had issued notice to respondents on application for condonation of delay. The said notice issued to respondent No.2(a) has been returned with postal shara ‘deceased’ . On 2-6-2008, learned counsel for appellant sought for time to take steps in respect of R-2(a) thereafterwards the matter was listed on 26-3-2009, 16-6-2010, 5-7-2010, 19-7-2010, 13-8-2010, 13-9-2010, 15-11-2010 and V 4 2-12-2010. On au these dates there was no representation on behalf of appellant and this Court to do complete justice between the parties has repeatedly adjourned the matter. Inspite of sufficient opportunity having been given to appellant no steps have been taken to bring the L.Rs of deceased R-2(a). Hence, appeal against R-2(a) has abated and even for paying process fee to R-2(b) and R-5, steps have not been taken inspite of several opportunities granted as noted herein above. Hence appeal against R-2(b) and R-5 also stands dismissed. ORDERS ON I.A.NO.1/2005 This application is filed by the first appellant who was arrayed as third defendant in the trial Court. She has stated that she has sworn to the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay that she has filed application/affidavit on behalf of other appellants also. Perused the affidavit and the contents. It is the contention of the second defendant 5 that they had engaged a counsel by name Sri.S.D.Thograshi, from Ranebennur at the instance of second defendant and their advocate had informed theni he would inform about the further progress of the case and it is also stated by her that when she contacted the advocate during the year 2002 she was informed that progress of the suit would be intimated to defendants 4 and 5 and they would be entitled to participate in the proceedings when called upon by him. It is also stated that when they did not hear from their counsel nor from defendant No.4 to 5 and later they came to know about the decree having been passed in the month of November and after obtaining second opinion from another advocate by name Sri.A.C.Neeralgi present appeal has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent who has opposed the delay being condoned and on perusal of cause shown it would emerge from the judgment and decree challenged, that defendants 3 6 to 8 who are appellants herein had appeared before the trail Court and when compromise petition was filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and it was opposed by them and as such, the trail Judge has rejected the said contention by assigning the reason in his order. Thus, claim of the appellants that they had not known about the progress of the suit or the suit being decreed, cannot be accepted. The delay is 626 days in filing instant appeal. The delay as explained in the affidavit supporting the application does not inspire any confidence in this Court to accept the same in view of the discussion made herein above. Accordingly application IA 1/2005 is rejected without condoning the delay Consequently appeal is also rejected. Sd/ JUDGE Sbb/ b