Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2345 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2023
-1-
RSA No. 828 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R. NARAYANA
S/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O. SHIVAKESHAVA NAGARA,
MUTHYALAPETE,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA K.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
Digitally signed
W/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA,
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI NAGARAJ
KARNATAKA
S/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDENTS OF OORAKUNTE
MITTOOR VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
-2-
RSA No. 828 of 2018
4. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O. SRI SEENAPPA
D/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA
R/O. PADMAGATTA VILLAGE,
BYRAKURU HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK - 563 131.
5. SMT. ANASUYA
W/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
D/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O. ALLAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUGGASANDRA HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK - 563 131.
6. SMT. UMA
W/O. SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
D/O. LATE SRI RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O. ATHIPALLI VILLAGE,
BYRAKURU HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK - 563 131.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2017
PASSED IN R.A.NO.141/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.119/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MULBAGAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Court, vide order dated 11.04.2023 considering that
appeal was filed in 2018 and the matter is listed third time for
non-compliance of office objections, granted ten days time to
RSA No. 828 of 2018
comply with the office objections on cost of Rs.1,500/-. It was
also made clear that, if the cost is not paid and the office
objections are not complied within ten days, list the matter for
dismissal. Inspite of it, learned counsel for the appellant has
not complied with the office objections and also not paid the
cost.
Accordingly, in terms of the preemptory order dated
11.04.2023, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of
office objections and non-payment of cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!