Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5255 Kant
Judgement Date : 3 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27182
RSA No. 1152 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY
SON OF SRI NAGARAJ
@ NAGARAJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BALLUR VILALGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 107.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH 2. SRI N. PRAKASH
COURT OF S/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI N. RAMESH
S/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. SMT. SAROJA
D/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27182
RSA No. 1152 of 2018
5. SRI N. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
6. SRI N. ANAND KUMAR
S/O LATE NANJA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
7. SRI PAPI REDDY
@ CHIKKAPAPI REDDY
S/O LATE CHANNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
8. SRI MUNI REDDY
SON OF LATE SRI LINGA REDDY
@ SRI MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R1, R2, R3, R5 AND R6;
SRI MURTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF
CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.201
PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.169/2006 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27182
RSA No. 1152 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant's counsel is absent and this Court vide
order dated 20.4.2023 on the request of the appellant's counsel
two weeks time is granted to comply with office objections
when the matter was listed for 5th time for non-compliance and
on payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. The counsel has not paid the
cost and not complied with office objections. The order is very
clear that, if office objections are not complied within two
weeks, list the matter for dismissal immediately after summer
vacation 2023.
Even in spite of 3½ months have been elapsed, though
two weeks time was granted, cost not paid and office
objections have not complied.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of
office objections and non-payment of cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
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!