Karnataka High Court
Mr.P.Kiran Kumar vs S.Puranjayan on 22 December, 2021
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1782 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. MR.P.KIRAN KUMAR
S/O. PURANJAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 478,
13TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
VYALIKAVAL,
BANGALORE
2. P.KEERTHI KUMAR
S/O PURANJAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.46, (OLD NO. 42/1)
3RD CROSS, SUDINDRA NAGAR,
S.P EXTENSION,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE ...Appellants
(By Sriyuths: N.B. NIJALINGAPPA & K.C. THIMMAIAH,
Advocates)
AND
1. S.PURANJAYAN
S/O LATE L. SHANMUGHAM,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 46,
(OLD NO. 42/1)
3RD CROSS,
SUDINDRA NAGAR,
S.P EXTENSION,
RFA.No.1782/2014 2
-------------------------
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE
2. SECRETARY
THE GRAIN MERCHANTS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD,
CHAMRAJPET,
BANGALORE
3. DIVYA NATH PATEL
S/O RAMESH B. PATEL,
RESIDING AT # 201, 8TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS,
R.M.V. EXTENSION,
BANGALORE
4. RACHANA PATEL
D/O DIVYA NATH PATEL,
RESIDING AT # 201,
8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
R.M.V. EXTENSION,
BANGALORE
5. P. BALAJI BABU
S/O P. VENKATACHALAPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9, 2ND MAIN,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE
6. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND RECOVERY OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
URBAN BANKS FEDERATION,
K.H ROAD,
BANGALORE ...Respondents
RFA.No.1782/2014 3
-------------------------
This Regular First Appeal filed U/s 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1
of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree
dated: 05.09.2014 passed in O.S. No. 3988/2004 on the file of
the XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-44) Partly decreeing the suit for partition.
This Regular First Appeal is coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants is physically present
and submits that the cost imposed as per order dated
16.12.2021 has been paid by him on 20.12.2021.
Registry to verify the same.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for further
adjournment in this matter for compliance of office objections.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this
appeal of the year 2014, for seven years, the appellants have
not complied the simple office objections including filing of typed
-------------------------
copy of decree, spelling the name of respondent No.3 correctly
and mentioning the executant's name in block letters below the
signature in Vakalath. It is really surprising to note that for these
kind of small compliance of office objections also, the appellants
are taking seven years plus time. As such, though the appeal
could have been dismissed for non-compliance of office
objections, however, considering the request made today and
the nature of appeal, by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by
the appellants to the Legal Services Committee of this Court
within a week from today and filing a compliance memo along
with receipt in the Registry within the said period, as an ultimate
chance, ten days time is granted to comply the office objections.
It is made clear that non-deposit of cost and non-
compliance of office objections in total, within ten days from
today would automatically result in dismissal of the appeal for
non-compliance of office objections, with effect from eleventh
day from today, without any further orders by this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
-------------------------
NOTE: Vide Court Order dtd. 22.12.2021, Office objections are
not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed for non-
prosecution, with effect from eleventh day from today, without
any further orders by this court.
T By: MP COPY
R By: YS
C By: DS Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
