Smt Meenakshi N vs Nagarajappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 5683 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE       7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

              R.F.A. No.878 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SMT. MEENAKSHI N
W/O RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
TAILOR PNO.9
PARVATHI NAGARA, LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560058
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR T.R., AND
SRI MANJUNATHA.K., ADVOCATES-ABSENT)

AND:

1 . NAGARAJAPPA
    S/O MARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
    AGRICULTURIST
    BISALEHALLI VILLAGE
    KADUR TALUK

2 . MAHADEVAPPA
    S/O MARIYIAPPA
    SINCE DEAD BY LRS

   2(a) SMT. NANJAMMA
   W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                                     RFA.No.878/2019

                           2




   2(b) RAVIKUMAR
   S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

   2(c) SMT. PREMA
   D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

3 . SRI SHADAKSHARAPPA
    S/O MARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

4 . PARAMESHWARAPPA
    S/O MARIYAPPA
    SINCE DEAD BY LRS

   4(a) SRI SHIVAMURTHY
   S/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

   4(b) SMT. PRAMEELA
   D/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

   NOS.2 TO 4 AND 4(a) & 4(b)
   ARE R/A BIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
   JYOTHI NAGARA POST
   CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK

5 . UMESHA
    S/O NAGARAJAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
    BISALEHALLI VILLAGE
    KADUR TALUK
                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                                                RFA.No.878/2019

                              3


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 09.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

None appears for the appellant either physically or

through video conference. In spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied with

the office objections. On 26.11.2021, as a last chance, a

week's time was granted to comply the office objections,

despite which, the appellant has neither complied the office

objections nor shown any reason for non-compliance or for

his non-appearance. The order sheet would also go to show

that on the previous two dates of hearing, the appellant had

remained absent. On 24.11.2021, the matter was passed

over at the request of learned counsel for the appellant to

enable him to file a memo seeking dismissal of the appeal as

prayed for by him.

RFA.No.878/2019

2. In spite of the above, the appellant since has not

complied the office objection nor even filed a memo of

dismissal proves he was not interested in prosecuting the

appeal, as on 24.11.2021, it has to be inferred that the

appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance

of office objections as well as for non-filing of the affidavit in

pursuance of this Court's direction dated 01.04.2021 and for

his non-appearance.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mv