Saroja W/O Basappa Nandihalli vs Sarojini W/O Basappa Nandihalli
2022 Latest Caselaw 11781 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

                 RFA No.100096/2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SAROJA W/O BASAPPA NANDIHALLI,
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O DISTRICT HOSPITAL, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                                .. APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.S.PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SAROJINI W/O BASAPPA NANDIHALLI,
       AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O SANGAMESHWAR COLONY, SAINAGAR,
       HUBLI , TQ. HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

2.     SHIVANAND BASAPPA NANDIHALLI,
       AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVIDE,
       R/O SANGAMESHWAR COLONY, SAINAGAR,
       HUBLI , TQ. HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

3.     RUPA URF GEETA W/O SHIVANAND NANDIHALLI,
       AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O KITTUR, TQ.BILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

4.     SMT.PURNIMA W/O VIJAYKUMAR GANIGER,
       AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O HIREBAGEWADI, TQ.BAILHONGAL,
       DIST: BELGAUM.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                               2




     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96     & R/W
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.269/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND FOR COURT COST.

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

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed on 17.06.2014 with several

office objections. Despite granting sufficient time, office

objections were not removed. Hence on 25.11.2014, 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/-