Malka Begum vs The City Municipality Council
2022 Latest Caselaw 12441 Kant

                              1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100012 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

MALKA BEGUM
W/O M.A.VALISAB,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/O 16TH WARD, BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE,
HOSAPETE - 583 201
                                             ...APPELLANT

[BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]

AND:

1.      THE CITY MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL,
        REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
        MUNICIPAL OFFICE, HOSAPETE,
        DIST:BALLARI - 583 201.

2.      THE COMMISSIONER,
        HOSAPETE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
        HUDA OFFICE, HOSAPETE - 583 201,
        DIST:BALLARI.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI AND
    SRI RAMESH I ZIRALLI, ADVOCATES)

        THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC, CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.09.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR
                                2




CIVIL    JUDGE   AND   JMFC,   HOSAPETE   IN   R.A.NO.39/2017,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2017
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, IN
O.S.NO.258/2013.


        THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL POSTED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Though matter called twice, there is no representation

on behalf of appellant.

The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non-

compliance of office objections.

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal

is filed on 02.01.2020. Now we are in the month of October

2022. It's almost three years since the date of filing of the

appeal, so far office objections are not complied with.

It appears that the appellant has not instructed the

counsel on record to comply office objections and as already

noted above, though matter called twice, there is no

representation on behalf of appellant. Hence, the Regular

Second Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office

objection and also for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TKN