Smt Nanjamma vs Sri Patalappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 4922 Kant

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                              AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1128/2018

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT NANJAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       W/O NARAYANAPPA,
       R/AT NO.286, MANURAYANA PALYA,
       R T NAGAR POST,
       BENGALURU - 560032.

2.     SMT MANJULAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       W/O MUNIRAJU
       R/AT BANNIMANGALA
       ALURU DUNDANAHALLI POST
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
                                           ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI UMESH, ADV. FOR SHIVAKUMAR.V, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI PATALAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
       S/O LATE APPAIAH @ MUNISHAMAPPA

2.     SMT. NARAYANAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
       W/O SRI PATALAPPA
                               2


3.   P SRINIVASA
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     S/O SRI PATALAPPA,

4.   SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     D/O SRI PATALAPPA

R1 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT
BANNIMANGALA VILLAGE,
ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR C/R3.)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST ORDER DATED
10.01.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.11/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI,
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)
AND (d) OF CPC.

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS'
THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

The Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 09.04.2021 had

ordered as under:-

"One week time granted finally for compliance of office objections, failing which post this matter for dismissal."

2. Office note states that the appeal is being listed

for the 5th time to report compliance of office objections.

Appeal has been pending since the last four years and the

appellants have shown no inclination to comply with the

office objections despite previous four orders and

accommodations by this Court.

3. In that view of the matter, appeal is dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Chs CT-HR