Kamalavva And Anr vs Sanganabasappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 4055 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


                 RFA No.200057/2021

Between:

1.     Kamalavva W/o Basavaraj Muddebihal,
       Age: 52 Years, Occ: House work,
       R/o: C/o Shivaputrappa Ettinamani
       Rudalabanda, Tq: Lingasugur,
       Dist: Raichur-584 122.

2.     Mahadevi
       W/o Shivaputrappa Ettinamani,
       Age: 47 Years, Occ: House work,
       R/o: C/o Shivaputrappa Ettinamani
       Rudalabanda, Tq: Lingasugur,
       Dist: Raichur-584 122.
                                            ... Appellants

(By Sri Mahadev S. Patil &
 Sri A.R.Taranath, Advocates)

And:

Sanganabasappa
S/o Sangappa Pyatigoudar,
Age: years, occ: Cloth Merchant,
Saraf Bazar Road, Muddebihal,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 212.
                                           ... Respondent
                                2




      This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
Code of Civil Procedure praying to allow the appeal by
setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Muddebihal in
O.S.No.178/2011 and consequently decree the suit of the
plaintiff with Mesne profits in the interest of justice.


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


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 23.12.2020. The matter

was listed before the Court on 07.09.2021. Two

weeks time was granted for compliance of office

objections. Again matter was listed on 16.11.2021.

One week time was granted for compliance.

Thereafter, matter was listed on 21.12.2021, on which

date, one week time was granted for compliance of

office objections subject to payment of cost of

Rs.200/-.

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 2021, 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*