Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2346 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2023
-1-
RSA No. 1704 of 2017
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. 1704 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAPPA
SON OF NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF MALAHAL VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK.
2. SMT. PREMA
WIFE OF NUNKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDENT OF GUTTIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. GIRIJAMMA
WIFE OF RANGAPPA
D/O. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MALAHAL VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK.
2. SMT. LALITHAMMA
WIFE OF HUCHHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HANUANAHALLI
-2-
RSA No. 1704 of 2017
CHIKKAJAJUR POST
HOLALKERE TALUK
3. SMT. SUMITHRA
WIFE OF GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KASAVANAHALLI,
NEAR HARAKERE DEVARAPURA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK.
4. SRI NAGENDRAPPA
SON OF NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
FOREST GUARD,
UBRANI FOREST AREA,
FOREST RANGE OFFICER
CHANNAGIRI.
5. SMT. HANUMAMMA
WIFE OF MANJAPPA
CLAIMING TO BE WIFE OF NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KULAGATTE VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK.
6. LOKEHSHAPPA
SON OF NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MALAHAL VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED IN
R.A. NO.45/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 23.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S. NO.195/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT DAVANGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 1704 of 2017
ORDER
This Court, vide order dated 11.04.2023 considering that
appeal was filed in 2017 and the matter is listed fifth time for
non-compliance of office objections, granted ten days time to
comply with the office objections on cost of Rs.2,500/-. 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 appellants has
not complied with the office objections, even though the matter
is listed sixth time for non-compliance of 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!