Mahadevappa S/O Yenkappa Kalle vs Amaramma W/O Somappa Naik
2022 Latest Caselaw 3879 Kant

           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

              R.S.A. NO.200099 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

MAHADEVAPPA
S/O YENKAPPA KALLE
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: LIC AGENT,
R/O: NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, HUTTI,
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VENKATESH G GAIDHANKAR, ADV.)

AND

AMARAMMA
W/O SOMAPPA NAIK
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHORAPUR TOWN,
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR.
                                           ...RESPONDENT


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2020 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.1/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, AT LINGASUGUR (SITTING AT SINDHANUR) , ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 18.01.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.77/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT LINGASUGUR.
                                2



    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 11.03.2020. The matter was

listed before the Court on 08.02.2021. Two weeks time was

granted for compliance of office objections. Again matter

was listed on 22.10.2021. One week's time was granted for

compliance of office objections. Matter was again listed on

24.11.2021, on which date, one week time was granted for

compliance. Again on 10.01.2022, when the matter was

listed, one week time was granted. On that date it was

made clear that if the objections are not complied within the

said time, matter was directed to be listed no 17.01.2022.

Again on 17.01.2022 one week time was granted. On

24.01.2022 also, one week time was granted for compliance

of office objections.

2. Today, matter is listed for non-compliance of office

objections for the 7th time. Even today case called twice.

There is no representation on behalf of the appellant.

Though the appeal is of the year 2020, 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

RD