Gundamma W/O Hanamanth vs Rachayya S/O Gurushantayya
2022 Latest Caselaw 13249 Kant

                                1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   GULBARGA BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.7376/2013

Between:

Smt. Gundamma
W/o Hanamanth
Age: 50 years
Occ: Agriculture & Household
R/o Benakapalli,
Tq. Chincholi, Dist. Gulbarga
                                               ... Appellant

(By Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, Advocate-Absent)

And:

Rachayya S/o Gurushantayya
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Benakappali
Tq. Chincholi, Dist. Gulbarga
                                            ... Respondent


    This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2013
passed in R.A.No.23/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge at Chincholi, dismissing the appeal and confirming
the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2012 passed in
O.S.No.4/2011 on the file of the PRL. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.
at Chincholi.
                               2




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

                         ORDER

This appeal was filed on 01.10.2013. As the

appellant had failed to comply with the office objections

within six weeks' time, the appeal came to be listed

before Court for Orders on 03.03.2014 as contemplated

under Rule 17 of Chapter XII of High Court of

Karnataka Rules, 1959, regarding non-compliance of

office objections, on which day the appellant was

granted three weeks' time to comply with the office

objections. The appellant did not comply the office

objections. Therefore, the appeal came to be listed

before the Court for orders on 27.10.2014 on which day

the following order came to be passed:

"Appellant is finally granted time up to 13.11.2014 for compliance of office objections, failing which, list the appeal for orders on 18.11.2014 as to why the appeal should not

be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections."

2. Till today, neither the office objections are

complied with nor there is representation for the

appellant. From the above facts, it is clear that

appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*