Smt Basammannamma vs Sri Ballaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 1595 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

           R.S.A. No.701/2015 (DEC & INJ)
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. BASAMMANNAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
       D/O LATE GURUBASAVADEVARU,
       W/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
       R/AT VATALUPURA VILLAGE,
       MUGURU HOBLI,
       T. NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.

2.     SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
       D/O LATE GURUBASAVADEVARU
       W/O V.M.BASAVANNA,
       R/AT VATALU VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI,
       T.NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.

3.     SMT.MARAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
       D/O LATE GURUBASAVADEVARU,
       W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA,
       R/AT DANAYAKAPURA VILLAGE,
       T. NARASIPURA TALUK.

4.     SMT. SUNDRAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
       D/O LATE GURUBASAVADEVARU,
       W/O NANJUNDAPPA,
       R/AT VATALUPURA VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI,
       T. NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.
                                         ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.A.L.SHABBIR AHMED, ADV.)
                              2



AND:

SRI. BALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE KAALABALLAIAH,
R/AT VATALU VILLAGE,
MUGURU HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.         ... RESPONDENT

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2014
PASSED IN RA NO.42/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, T. NARASIPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.07.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.203/2002 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, T.NARASIPURA.

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

                        JUDGMENT

1. On 09.06.2016 three weeks time was granted

for compliance of office objections.

2. On 09.04.2019 despite the fact that there was

no representation for the appellant, a week's time was

granted to comply with the office objections making it

clear that applications and appeal would stand dismissed

for default.

3. On 17.09.2019 an application filed for recalling

was found to be un-necessary.

4. On 07.02.2020 in view of the non-compliance of

office objections on IAs, the appeal as against appellant

No.2 was ordered to be abated.

5. On 20.04.2021 a week's time was granted to

comply with office objections failing which it was made

clear that IAs would stand rejected.

6. Thereafter, on 05.01.2022 and 28.01.2022,

matter was adjourned.

7. Thus, today though the matter is listed for the

fifth time for compliance of office objections, the counsel

has not taken steps to comply with the office objections.

Left with no other option, this appeal is dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BRN