Manikappa S/O Late Irappa ... vs Bhimashankaer @ Vijaykumar And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9729 Kant

                           1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

                   RP No.200020/2016

BETWEEN:

MANIKAPPA S/O LATE IRAPPA MARKUNDE
AGE:72 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADWAD
TALUKA AND DISTRICT:BIDAR
                                  ...REVIEW PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     BHIMASHANKAER @ VIJAYKUMAR
       S/O LATE SHAMRAO PATIL
       AGE:45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE

2.     SHALIVAN S/O LATE SHAMRAO PATIL
       AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

3.     DAYANAND S/O LATE SHAMRAO PATIL
       AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

4.     SUSHILABAI W/O LATE SHAMRAO PATIL
       AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD

       ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KADWAD
       TALUKA AND DIST:BIDAR
                             2



5.    BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA MARKUNDI
      AGE:76 YEARS, OCC:

6.    ANILKUMAR S/O KALYANRAO
      AGE:45 YEARS, OCC::WATER SUPPLIER

7.    SHANTKUMAR S/O KALYANRAO
      AGE:35 YEARS, OCC::AGRICULTURE

8.    BHARATADEVI W/O KALYANRAO
      AGE:68 YEARS, OCC::AGRICULTURE

9.    SHIVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA
      AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

10.   CHANDRAPPA S/O MAREPPA RAMEGAR
      AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE

      ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KADWAD
      TALUKA AND DIST:BIDAR

11.   ANTAPPA S/O RAMSHETTY
      AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
      RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANTHPUR
      TALUKA AURAD-B AND DIST:BIDAR-585326

12.   VENUGOPAL S/O MANSHARAM KARWA
      AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
      RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KADWAD
      TALUKA AND DIST:BIDAR-585326

                                          ... RESPONDENTS

       This RP is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC,
praying to review the judgment passed in RSA
No.200026/2014 and further may kindly be pleased to set
aside the same by giving suitable directions to the
petitioner and respondent No.5, by allowing this petition.
                                3



      This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:-

                             ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is not co-operating in complying with the

office objections. Hence, he would submit that

necessary orders may be passed.

The office objections are pending since long

back. The matter is pending from 2016. Considering

the conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that the

petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.

Hence, the petition stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr