Smt.Huligemma W/O Basappa Kuri vs Sri.Balappa S/O Lepanna Kambali
2022 Latest Caselaw 2243 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

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

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100558/2019


BETWEEN:
SMT.HULIGEMMA W/O BASAPPA KURI
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: VANABALLARY VILLAGE,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
                                          .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, PROXY COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVS.)

AND:

1 . SRI.BALAPPA S/O LEPANNA KAMBALI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KAMANUR VILLAGE,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL-583236.

2 . SRI.NAGAPPAP S/O NINGAPPA KAMBALI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: VANABALLARY VILLAGE,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
                                        .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
RESPONDENT No.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
                                     RFA No.100558/2019

                           2



     THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DTD:31.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.


     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO    CONFERENCING     HEARING     THIS   DAY,
Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:




                         ORDER

The learned proxy counsel for the appellant is

present. Except stating that, a cost of `1,000/- ordered

previously has been paid, he further submits that, the

learned counsel for the appellant on record, has gone to

temple.

2. Though this Court has given him an option

that the further time if he genuinely requires would be

considered on the payment of further cost by him, still RFA No.100558/2019

the learned counsel does not make use of the said

option given to him.

3. A perusal of the order-sheet would go to

show that, on the previous date of hearing noticing that

in spite of granting sufficient opportunities, paper book

was not filed. By imposing costs of `1,000/-, ten days

time as prayed was granted. Though the counsel reports

that, he has paid the said cost, but still he has not filed

the paper book. Mere payment of costs ipso facto does

not extend the time for filing the paper book. Further

more, even the compliance report also has not been

filed through a memo in duplicate even after knowing

that the matter is pending before a Division Bench.

4. Thus, it shows that, the appellant has least

respect towards the procedure and process of the Court.

Therefore, noticing that in spite of granting sufficient

time, even after imposing costs, the appellant has not RFA No.100558/2019

filed the paper book, the appeal stands dismissed for

non-filing of the paper book.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Svh/-