Smt.Gangamma W/O Late ... vs Revansiddayya And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6241 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


                 RFA No.200047/2020

BETWEEN:

SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HERA NAGAR,
HEERAPUR RING ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     REVANSIDDAYYA S/O RACHAYYA
       AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O NO.157, ANKALGA-585301,
       TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI.

2.     SMT. GURUBAI W/O CHITAMBARAYA
       AGE: 49 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O H.NO.E/8/1573/18, NEHRU GUNJ,
       FILTER BED ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANTOSH KUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R1)
                            2




     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.01.2020 PASSED BY III-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN O.S.NO.34/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE
MATTER MAY KINDLY BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR
GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE THE PWS.1 TO 4 AND THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF
KINDLY BE DISMISSED.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed on 09.03.2020. This

matter was listed on 26.02.2021 and four weeks' time

was granted to comply with the office objections. The

matter was again listed on 07.03.2022 and two weeks

time was granted to comply with the office objections.

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 25.03.2022, on

which day, though case was called twice, none

appeared for the appellant. However, one week time

was granted to comply with the office objections

subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- and it was

made clear that if office objections are not complied,

the appeal would be listed for dismissal.

Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, learned

counsel for the appellant has failed to comply with the

office objections. It seems that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the

peremptory order, the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*