Karnataka High Court
Arjun S/O Baburao Nesarkar vs Appayya S/O Surendra Halagi on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, S.Rachaiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
BETWEEN
1. ARJUN S/O BABURAO NESARKAR,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. MALLAPPA S/O NAGAPPA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. MAHADEV S/O NAGAPPA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. KUBER S/O NAGAPPA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4
ARE R/AT: PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI.
5. MALASARJI S/O PAKIRA GADADAR,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT RAMDEV GALLI, PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI.
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
2
6. BABU S/O BHARMA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT MAJGAON, BELAGAVI
7. SMT. SUSHILA W/O RAYAPPA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:PEERANWADI, BELAGAVI
8. AWAKKA W/O TAWANAPPA GOURANNA,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:MAJGAON, BELAGAVI.
9. SUNITA W/O ANIL GOURANNA,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:MAJGAON, BELAGAVI
10. SMT. BHARATI W/O RAYAPPA PATIL,
AGED : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:PEERANWADI, BELAGAVI
11. CHANDRAKANT S/O NEMU PATIL,
AGD ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:PATIL GALLI, PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MISS SURABHI KULKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI R.M. KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
1. APPAYYA S/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:H.NO.209/13,
LAXMI GALLI, MAJGAON,
BELGAUM
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
3
2. SUDHIR S/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:H.NO.209/13,
LAXMI GALLI, MAJGAON
BELGAUM
ALSO AT:C/O M.L.BHARATRAJAN,
SANMATI MEDICAL STORES,
JAIN STREET, MANDYA
3. SMT. SUHASINI
W/O APPASAHEB BHOJANNAVAR,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:NAVI GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
BELGAUM
4. SMT. SUSHILABAI W/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:MUSLIM GALLI, MAJAGAON,
BELGAUM.
5. YELLAPPA S/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:MUSLIM GALLI, MAJAGAON,
BELGAUM
6. VIJAY S/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT:MUSLIM GALLI, MAJAGOAN,
BELGAUM
7. ASHOK S/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT:MUSLIM GALLI, MAJAGOAN,
BELGAUM
8. SMT. RAJAMATI W/O SURENDRA HALAGI,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:VAKARBAG, SANGLI
MAHARASHTRA
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
4
9. PARASHRAM S/O YELLAPPA NESARKAR,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT:KHADARWADI,
BELGAUM
10. RAGHUNATH S/O BABURAO NESARKAR,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:PATIL GALLI, PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
11. SATAPPA S/O NAGAPPA PATIL,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
12. FAKIRA S/O NAGAPPA PATIL,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT:PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
13. NEMU S/O KUBER PATIL,
MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
14. SMT. TAWANAWWA W/O BAHUBALI PATIL,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
15. SMT. BHARATI D/O BAHUBALI PATIL,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:PEERANWADI,
BELGAUM
16. SMT. KALAWATI S/O KUBERA MUNWALLI,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:MATHA GALLI,
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
5
BELGAUM
17. SMT. ANANTMATI S/O SUDHIR BHENDIGERI,
MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT:BHENDIGERI GALLI, ANAGOL,
BELGAUM
18. MAHADEV S/O NAGAPPA MAJUKAR,
MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:INDUSTRIAL AREA,
UDYAMBAG, BELGAUM
19. SADIQ S/O ISAQ TIGADI,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT NO.582, KURBUR GALLI, ANGOL,
BELGAUM
20. RAJENDRA PAYAPPA RAMGOUNDA,
AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT:H.NO.1206, KONWAL GALLI,
BELGAUM
.....RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.75/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI,
ALLOWING THE SUIT FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
DR. H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
6
ORDER
Learned counsel Miss Surabhi Kulkarni, physically
appears and submits that she would file vakalath for
appellants and once again prays two weeks' time to comply
office objections.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that this is the appeal of the year 2019 and inspite of several
and sufficient opportunities granted for more than two and
half years, the appellants have not complied the office
objections.
3. A perusal of the outstanding office objections also
go to show that there are only two office objections, which
are too minor, which can be attended without any further
delay. Inspite of the same, the appellants have not complied
the office objections.
4. Though the learned counsel on record appears to
have been disabled in this matter, however, in several of his
matters, we have been reminding his junior counsel and
R.F.A.No.100302/2019
proxy counsel repeatedly to ensure that well within the time,
the vakalath of the other advocates appearing for the
appellants from his office be filed, thus avoiding any
inconvenience and delay in the matter. Inspite of our such
repeated observations and requests, since the learned
counsel for appellants has not taken any steps in that regard
and office objections are also not complied with, we do not
find any reason to grant some more time.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Naa
