Sri D Manjunath vs Smt Shantha
2021 Latest Caselaw 5786 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                            BEFORE

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

                     R.F.A.No.854 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Sri D Manjunath
Aged about 51 years
S/o late Doreswamy Goundar
Coolie, R/at Anchelingana Beedi
Near Sri.Lekha talkies,
Aravindanagara, Basavanahalli,
Chikkamagaluru-577101
Chikkamagaluru Taluk & District

                                              ...Appellant
(By Sri. Shankaranarayana Bhat N, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Smt Shantha
       Aged about 46 years
       W/o D. Manjunath,
       Hotel keeper,
       R/at Anchelingana Beedi,
       Near Sri.Lekha Talkies,
       Aravindanagara, Basavanahalli,
       Chikkamagaluru-577101
       Chikkamagaluru Taluk & District.

2.     Sri.M.Naveen
       Aged about 21 years
       S/o D. Manjunath
       Residing at Anchelingana Beedi
       Near Sri.Lekha Talkies,
                                               R.F.A.No.854/2015

                               2



      Aravindanagara, Basavanahalli,
      Chikkamagaluru -577101
      Chikkamagaluru Taluk & District.

3.    Smt. Gangamma
      Aged about 43 years
      W/o Thimmegowda
      R/at Sri. Lekha Talkies,
      Aravindanagara, Basavanahalli
      Chikkamagaluru-577101
      Chikkamagaluru Taluk & District
                                            ...Respondents

                             ****
     This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2015
passed in O.S.No.169/2012 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil
Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the suit for declaration and
possession.

      This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made
the following:

                          ORDER

Learned Counsel for the appellant is physically present and

submits that despite his maximum effort, parties are not

evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter, as such, he

could not comply the office objections in the form of paying

deficit Court fee.

2. In view of the above submission and also noticing that

sufficient opportunities of not less than eight times have been R.F.A.No.854/2015

granted in this matter, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JT/-