Mohd. Taher S/O Naseeruddin Dead ... vs Fareed Patel S/O Mastan Patel Dead ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4041 Kant

                            1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

                RSA No.200067/2020
Between:

1.   Mohd. Taher S/o Naseeruddin
     dead by LRs.,

a.   Afsar Sultana W/o Mohammed Taher,
     Age: 57 Years, occ: Household,

b.   Mohammed Ehtashamuddin
     S/o Mohd. Taher,
     Age: 33 years, Occ: Private Work,

     The Lrs., No.1(a) & (b) are
     resident of Chittapur,
     Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.

c.   Arshiya Sultana W/o Shafiq Uzama
     D/o Mohd. Taher,
     Age: 36 Years, Occ: Household,
     R/o Yadgir, Tq: Yadgir,
     Dist: Yadgir-585 201.

d.    Naziya Sultana W/o Mohd. Zaheer
      D/o Mohd. Taher,
      age: 35 Years, Occ: Household,
      R/o: Naya Mohella, Kalaburagi-585 104.
                                          ... Appellants
(By Sri Md. Abdul Sattar Saradgi &
 Sri Mohammed Ali Hipperga, Advocates)
                               2




And:

1.     Fareed Patel S/o Mastan Patel
       dead by LRs.

a.     Smt. Mastanbi W/o Iqbal Miya,
       Age: 59 Years, Occ: Household,
       R/o: H.No.1202/22/7
       Dr. Muneer House
       Bilalabd Near K.B.N.
       Engineering College,
       Kalaburagi-585 104.

b.     Allabaksh S/o Fareed Patel,
       Age: 49 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o Assar Mohella, Chittapur,
       Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.

c.     Abdul Rahim S/o Fareed Patel,
       Age: 44 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o: Assar Mohella, Chittapur,
       Tq: Chittapur,
       Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.

d.     Wazeer Bee W/o Fareed Patel,
       Age: 89 Years, Occ: Household,
       R/o Assar Mohella, Chittapur,
       Tq: Chittapur,
       Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.

2.     Mohammed Khalid Majroddin
       S/o Mohd Taher,
       Age: 37 Years, Occ: Private Work,
       R/o Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.

3.     Smt. Aktar Begum W/o Mashak Sab,
       Age: 61 Years, Occ: Household,
       R/o Rayapachal, Tq: Chittapur,
                               3




      Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.
                                               ... Respondents

      This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section
100 R/w Order 42 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying to allow the
appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed
by the Civil Judge at Chittapur dated 09.07.2013 in
O.S.No.33/2009 and the judgment and decree passed by
the Senior Civil Judge Chittapur in R.A.No.25/2013 dated
26.09.2019,    consequently       the   suit    filed    by   the
plaintiff/respondent in O.S.No.33/2009 on the file of Civil
Judge Chittapur kindly be dismissed as prayed for in the
written statement along with cost throughout.


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


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 17.02.2020. 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 04.10.2021. Finally, four

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections, failing which, the appeal was ordered to be

listed for dismissal. Matter was again listed on

15.11.2021, on which date, one week time was granted

for compliance. Again on 21.12.2021, when the matter

was listed, one week time was granted for compliance

subject to payment cost of Rs.200/-. It is forthcoming

from the records that inspite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities, the appellants have not

complied the office objections and has not paid the cost.

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

office objections for the 4th time. Inspite of granting

sufficient opportunities, learned counsel for the

appellants has not complied with the office objections.

Even today there is no representation on behalf of the

appellants. Though the appeal is of the year 2020, it

seems that the appellants are not interested in

prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed

for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*