Seshamma vs Smt Lakshmamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 2152 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                      RSA No. 2219 of 2017




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                          REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2219 OF 2017

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SESHAMMA
                         W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
                         AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.931, KUSHALANAGARA EXTENSION,
                         SAKALESHAPURA TOWN,
                         HASSAN DISTRICT-573201

                   2.    GAYATHRI
                         D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
                         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.931, KUSHALANAGARA EXTENSION,
Digitally signed
                         SAKALESHPURA TOWN,
by SHARANYA T            HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                CHANNEGOWDA
                         DEAD BY HIS LRS,

                   3.    LATHA,
                         W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                         R/AT SEETHAPURA VILLAGE,
                         MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

                   4.    CHAITRA
                         D/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
                          -2-
                                RSA No. 2219 of 2017




     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
     R/AT SEETHAPURA VILLAGE,
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

5.   SHRIDHAR
     S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
     AGE ABOUT 262 YEARS,
     R/AT SEETHAPURA VILLAGE,
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

6.   NAGARTHNA
     D /O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.931, KUSHALANAGARA EXTENSION,
     SAKALESHAPURA TOWN,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-573201

7.  MAHESH
    S/O CHICKKEGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
    R/AT NO.931, KUSHALANAGARA EXTENSION,
    SAKALESHAPURA TOWN,
    HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
                                     ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT LAKSHMAMMA
     W/O LATE CHKKEGOWDA,
     AGE 75 YEARS,

2.   EREGOWDA
     S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGE 69 YEARS,

     RANGA
     DEAD BY HIS LRS,
                         -3-
                                RSA No. 2219 of 2017




3.   LAXMI,
     W/O LATE RANGA,
     AGE MAJOR,

4.   LATHA
     D/O LATE RANGA,
     AGE MAJOR,

5.   HEMALATHA
     D/O LATE RANGA,
     AGE MAJOR,

6.   SHRIDHARA
     S/O LATE RANGA,
     AGE MAJOR,

7.   NANJUNDA
     S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGE 46 YEARS,

8.   APPAJI
     S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGE 43 YEARS,

     ALL ARE R/AT DEVIHALLI VILLAGE,M
     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

    THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2017
PASSED IN R.A.NO.104/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN
AND ETC.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -4-
                                                 RSA No. 2219 of 2017




                              ORDER

This appeal was filed in the year 2017. This Court vide

order dated 27.03.2023 observed that counsel for the

appellants is not showing any interest in complying with the

office objections. It is further observed that on the previous

date also, this Court taken note of the fact that the counsel for

the appellants has complied some of the office objections and

to comply with the remaining office objections, two weeks time

was granted and out of six office objections, five are complied

and hence, again one week time was granted to comply with

one office objection. But on perusal, it discloses that, there are

still six office objections. This matter is listed for fifth time for

non-compliance of office objections. Even though sufficient

time was granted, office objections are not complied with.

Hence, there is no ground to grant further time for the same

purpose. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN