Shana Begum @ Shamyada Begum W/O ... vs Shivamma W/O Hiroji Lambani
2022 Latest Caselaw 12402 Kant

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   GULBARGA BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 200206/2014

Between:

Shana Begum @ Shamyada Begum
W/o Mehaboob Sab
Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Bangalore Bypass Road, Lingasugur
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur
                                                ... Appellant

(By Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, Advocate-Absent)

And:

Shivamma W/o Hiroji Lambani
Age: 56 years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Bangalore Bypass Road, Lingasugur
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur
                                             ... Respondent

     This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.2013
passed in R.A.No.11/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge & J.M.F.C. at Lingasugur, allowing the appeal and
setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13.03.2013
passed in O.S.No.73/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge at
Lingasugur.
                             2




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

                       ORDER

This appeal was filed on 26.06.2014. 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 14.10.2014 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 following order came

to be passed:

"Appellant is finally granted time up to 07.11.2014 for compliance of office objections, failing which, list the appeal for orders on 11.11.2014 as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections."

2. 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*