Tahirpasha vs Mohiddinbasha @ Noorahmed
2022 Latest Caselaw 1701 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1701 Kant
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Tahirpasha vs Mohiddinbasha @ Noorahmed on 3 February, 2022

Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, S.Rachaiah

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

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

                            AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

                   RFA No.100131/2020


BETWEEN:

Tahirpasha S/o. Mohammed Sayyed Mavazzan,
Age about 68 years, Occ: Retired Teacher,
R/o. Bankapur, Taluka Shiggaon,
District Haveri - 581126.

                                                 .. Appellant
(Sri. M.R.Mulla, Advocate for appellant)

AND:

1.     Mohiddinbasha @ Noorahmed S/o.
       Sayyed Peerpasha Makandar,
       Age about 72 years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o. Khadarbaug Oni, Savanur,
       Taluka Savanur, District Haveri-581126.

2.     Abdulgafar @ Bahulal S/o. Hussainmiyan Mommin,
       Age about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o. Jumma Bazar, Savanur,
       Taluka Savanur, Dist. Haveri - 581126.
                                                     RFA No.100131/2020


                                  2


3.    Muneerahmed S/o. Sayyed Peerpasha Makandar,
      Age about 64 years, Occ: Agriculture,
      R/o. Khadarbaug Oni, Savanur,
      Taluka Savanur, District Haveri-581126.

                                             .. Respondents
(Sri. Naveen Chatrad, Advocate for Caveator/R2)

      This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC., against the
Judgment     and    Decree       dated    22.11.2019     passed     in
O.S.No.8/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Savanur,
partly allowing the suit filed for specific performance of
contract.


      This appeal coming on for Orders through video
conferencing   hearing    this     day,     Dr.H.B.Prabhakara
Sastry J., made the following:



                             ORDER

None appear for the appellant.

A perusal of the order-sheet would go to show

that, despite granting two weeks time on 04.06.2021

and 'as finally', the appellant has not complied the office

objections. He has also not shown any reasons for non-

compliance of the office objections. He has also RFA No.100131/2020

remained absent without showing any reason, as such,

the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the

office objections, as well for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-