Shabeer Ahamed S/O. Husseinsab ... vs Drakshayani W/O. Gurusiddappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11773 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                     DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA

                 RSA No.100072/2014 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SHABBER AHAMED S/O HUSSEINSAB MORAB,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEW ANANDNAGAR, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI-580029.
                                              .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.K.HEGDE & SRI.V.S.KUMAR, ADVS.)

AND:

1.     SMT.DRAKSHAYANI W/O GURUSIDDAPPA KULKARNI,
       AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O BANDIWAD, TQ.HUBLI-580029.

2.     SHRI.MEGHARAJ S/O GURUSIDDAPPA KULKARNI,
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O BANDIWAD, TQ.HUBLI-580029.

3.     SHRI.VEERAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA KULKARNI,
       AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O BANDIWAD, TQ.HUBLI-580029.

4.     SHRI.ANNAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA KULKARNI,
       AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PVT.SERVICE,
       R/O BANDIWAD, TQ.HUBLI-580029.

5.     SMT.SHAMALA W/O SHIVANAND DESAI,
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O HEBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
                              2




6.   SMT.USHA W/O KUDALAPPA MALANBASARI,
     AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O SOODI VILLAGE, TQ.RON, DIST: GADAG-582101.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R.S.HEGDE & SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVS. FOR C/R1-R4)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER
42 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2011 & 41/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HUBLI,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL R.A.NO.35/2011 AND DISMISSING THE
APPEAL R.A.NO.41/2011, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 07.03.2011 AND THE DECREE PASSED           IN
O.S.NO.297/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,
HUBLI,    DECREEING   THE   SUIT   FILED    FOR   SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 30.01.2014 with several

office objections. Despite granting sufficient time, office

objections were not removed. Hence on 30.10.2014, a

peremptory order was passed granting six weeks time to

do the needful, failing which it was observed that the

appeal would be dismissed. In spite of the peremptory

order, office objections are not removed. Hence this appeal

is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

SD/-

JUDGE MBS/-