Ramesh vs Kalyanrao And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3876 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

                  RFA No.200004/2018
Between:

Ramesh S/o Hanmanthrao Gayakwad,
Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Resident of Village Beeri-K, Tq. Bhalki,
Dist. Bidar.
                                                 ... Appellant
(By Sri Manure Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
And:
1.     Kalyanrao S/o Late Vasanthrao Patil,
       Aged about 50 years, Occ: Engineer,
       R/o H.No.8-7-87/115 LIG housing
       Board Colony, Bidar-585 401.
2.     Ravindra Patil S/o Vasanthrao Patil,
       Aged about 46 years, Occ: Doctor,
       R/o H.No.8-7-87/115 LIG Housing
       Board Colony, Bidar, now at Patil
       Lithotripshy Nursing Home Behind
       Nagarjun Hotel Venkatesh Nagar,
       Gulbarga-585 101.
                                              ... Respondents
       This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
Code of Civil Procedure praying to allow the regular first
appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree
dated 06.12.2017 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge
and CJM at Bidar and pleased to decree the suit of the
plaintiff/appellant as sought the relief in the plaint in
O.S.No.173/2014.
                              2




      This appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-


                      JUDGMENT

There is no representation for the appellant. This

appeal was filed on 08.01.2018. This matter was listed on

11.06.2018 and three weeks' time was granted to comply

with the office objections. The matter was again listed on

02.08.2018, on that day, eight weeks' time was granted to

comply with the office objections making it clear that if

office objections are not complied, the appeal would stand

dismissed without reference to the Bench. Since the office

objections were not complied, the appeal stood dismissed.

When the matter was listed on 21.03.2019, none appeared

for the appellant and the matter was ordered to be listed

after two weeks. Thereafter, the matter was listed on

02.04.2019, on that day, applications which were filed

seeking to condone the delay and to recall the dismissal

order dated 02.08.2018, were allowed and the appeal was

ordered to be restored to file. Thereafter, the matter was

listed on 06.06.2019 and on the request of the appellant's

counsel, two weeks time was granted to comply with the

office objections making it clear that if office objections are

not complied within two weeks, the appeal would be listed

for dismissal. Since objections were not complied with,

appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant filed I.A.No.1/2019

seeking recall of the order dated 26.06.2019. On

10.10.2019, I.A.No.1/2019 came be allowed subject to

deposit of cost of Rs.3,000/- with the Registry within seven

days. On deposit of cost, the appeal was restored to file.

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 28.11.2019 and one

week time was granted on payment of cost of Rs.500/-.

When the matter was listed on 06.03.2020, it is observed

that cost is not paid and finally, two weeks' time was

granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. On

18.11.2020, two weeks' time was granted to comply with

the office objections making it clear that if office objections

are not complied within two weeks, the matter would

listed for dismissal. When the matter was listed on

09.12.2020, peremptory order passed on 18.11.2020 was

recalled and four weeks time was granted for compliance.

On 25.01.2021, there was no representation for the

appellant and the matter was ordered to be listed after two

weeks. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 08.03.2021

and two weeks' time was granted to do the needful. On

12.01.2022, at request, two weeks' time was granted to

do the needful. On 28.01.2022, at request, matter was

adjourned to 09.02.2022 to enable the appellant to comply

with office objections.

Today, matter is listed for the ninth time for

compliance of office objections. There is no representation

for the appellant. The appeal is of the year 2018. Inspite

of granting sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for the

appellant has failed to comply with the office objections.

Earlier, on two occasions, the appeal was dismissed for

non-compliance of office objections. It seems that the

appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*