Karnataka High Court
Sri D Srinivasa vs Sri D Chaluvaraju on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1113 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI D.SRINIVASA,
S/O S. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O NO. 23, 2ND CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, ANANDANAGAR,
R.T. NAGARA POST,
BANGALORE-560 032.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI GEORGE LAZARUS.R. &
KRUPANIDHI.C.R., ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI D. CHALUVARAJU,
S/O LATE S. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 113/36, EAST
'C' MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR,
9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 069.
[SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY L.R.]
1. SMT. V. SARASWATHI,
WIFE OF D.CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RFA No. 1113/2018
2
BANGALORE-560 005.
2. MISS C.RENUKA,
D/O D. CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA,
S/O D. CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. SRI C. PURUSHOTHAM,
S/O D. CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O D. CHELUVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 113/36,
EAST AND 'C' MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGARA, 9TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE 560 009.
6. SRI D. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE S.DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 23, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
ARAMENANAGAR, C.K. STREET,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
7. SMT. SREEMATHI,
W/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 58,
S.K. SERVICE, VISHWANATHA
SHASTRY, MADEVANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 009.
RFA No. 1113/2018
3
8. SMT. CHIKKATAYAMMA,
W/O D. SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 16, 'F' STREET,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
NEW GUDDAHALLI,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 026.
9. SRI D. VENKATESH,
S/O K. DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.7-451F, MANIGARA VATARA,
VIJAYALAKSHMI CLINIC ROAD,
SOUTHERN EXTENSION,
KOLLEGAL TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 08.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6643/2007 ON
THE FILE OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-39), PARTLY DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION
AND ETC.,
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
RFA No. 1113/2018
4
PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is physically
present and once again prays for a short accommodation.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that this appeal is of the year 2018. For more than three
years, the appellant had an opportunity to do the needful
in the matter, despite which he has not filed interlocutory
application for condonation of delay. Several and sufficient
opportunities have already been granted to him in this
regard.
3. On 26.11.2021, this Court made the following
observation:
"At the request of learned counsel for the
appellant, who is appearing through video
conference, as an ultimate chance, two days
accommodation as prayed is granted, by
making it clear that in case if the office
objections are not complied on or before
RFA No. 1113/2018
29.11.2021, the appeal stands dismissed on its
own, without any further orders from this
Court, with effect from 01.12.2021".
Despite the above observation, where an ultimate
chance was given to the appellant as prayed, the appellant
is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter and
to file an interlocutory application for condonation of delay.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-filing of
interlocutory application for condonation of delay and also
for non-compliance of office objection.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mbb
