Karnataka High Court
Mrs Khamar Jahan vs Mr Syed Shamshuddin @ Anjum ... on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, Anil B Katti
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2012 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS KHAMAR JAHAN
W/O MR ANWARUDDIN KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.513, 14TH CROSS,
1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078
2. MRS. AKTHAR JAHAN,
W/O. MR. NISSAR AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.60, 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
MINHAJ NAGAR, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE -560 078.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally (APPELLANT NO.2 DELETED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED
signed by
VEENA 08.08.2012)
KUMARI B
Location:
High Court (BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1)
of Karnataka
AND:
1. MR SYED SHAMSHUDDIN
@ ANJUM PARVEEZ
S/O LATE SYED NAWABJAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. MR SYED TAJAM
S/O LATE SYED HUSAIN @ NAWABJAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
3. MRS SAMEENA FIRDOSE
D/O LATE SYED NAWAB JAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDENT AT
C/O M A K ANSARI,
MANAGER, AMANATH CO OPERATIVE BANK
BRIGADE ROAD BRANCH
BANGALORE - 560 001
4. MR SYED NIZAM
S/O SYED HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. MRS LATE GULSHIRUNNISA
W/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN @ NAWABJAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D-2, 4 AND 5 ARE R/A ACCHALU VILLAGE
SATHNUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 117
6. MR SYED MOHIDDIN
S/O LATE SYED SHAMSHUDDIN
@ BAKSHI SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D.1 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT
C/O MUKUNDA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
WEST OF PIPE LINE ROAD
KANAKAPURA-562117
7. MRS. AKTHAR JAHAN
W/O MR. NISSAR AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, 2ND CROSS,
5TH MAIN, MINHAJ NAGAR,
KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
8. MRS ASHRAF JAHAN
D/O LATE SHAMSHUDDIN @ BAKSHI
W/O MR. S K AMANULLA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A NO.111/2, MUSTAFA MANZIL
1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
K V LAYOUT, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD
K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560 016.
9 SRI. ERRAPPA
C/O BOMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
10 SMT. NINGAMMA,
W/O. LATE KARIGOWDA,
AGEDA BOUT 65 YEARS
11 SRI. YALEMOGE GOWDA
S/O. LATE ERRA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
12 SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. MANCHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12 ARE
ALL RESIDING AT
ACHALU VILLAGE, POST OFFICE,
SATHANUR HOBLI 562117.
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
13 SRI. SHEKAR,
S/O. CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
RESIDING AT ACHALUR VILLAGE,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
POST OFFICE,
SATHANUR VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R3
AND R6; R5 DECEASED; V/O. DT. 04.12.2016 R1 TO R4 ARE
TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R5; R4 DECEASED;
SRI. TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF R7 AS
R7(A-D); V/O. DT. 24.02.2015 NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED
WITH.
SRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R13)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.269/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY,
DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel
for legal representatives of respondent no.7 and learned
counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 are physically present.
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a
memo seeking her retirement from appearing for the
appellant in this mater.
3. Perused the memo, previous order sheets and
submission of learned counsel for the appellant.
4. In the memo, it is stated that expressing her
intention to retire from appearing for the appellant in this
matter, learned counsel for the appellant has sent an
email. However, learned counsel submits that the said
email ID was not that of the appellant but it was of her
son. Thus, admittedly, there is no communication of the
notice of retirement to the appellant by the learned
counsel for the appellant. As such, the memo stands
rejected.
5. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that on 04.08.2023 by making a detailed observation
inter-alia observing that original proceedings from which
this appeal has arisen is of the year 2007. This Court had
rejected I.A.Nos. 5 to 7 however by imposing a cost of
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
`5000/- payable by the applicant therein to the High Court
Legal Services Committee on or before this date.
Admittedly, the said cost is also not paid. Further under
the same order, a peremptory order was passed in respect
of I.A.Nos. 8 to 10 to do the needful with respect to
service of notice on these I.As on respondents No.4(a) to
(c). No submission regarding doing needful has been
made. As such, by virtue of the said peremptory order
I.A.Nos.8 to 10, as mentioned in the order dated
04.08.2023, stand dismissed.
6. By the submission made today, it appears that
the learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that
despite her repeated attempts to contact the appellant,
appellant is not responding properly, as such, she is
unable to proceed further in the matter, it is clear that the
appellant is not interested to prosecute this appeal. As
observed on 04.08.2023, the original proceedings, from
which this appeal has arisen is of the year 2007, as such,
NC: 2023:KHC:28990-DB
RFA No. 481 of 2012
the litigation is pending since 16 years, still the appellant
is not evincing any interest.
In the light of the above developments and
observations, the appeal stands dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Since the appellant has not paid the cost as ordered
on 04.08.2023, the beneficiary of the cost, which is the
Legal Services Committee of this Court is at liberty to
recover the cost, as arrears of the land revenue in
accordance with law by treating the said order and today's
order as decree. To enable the beneficiary in the said
process the registry to transmit the copy of the order
dated 04.08.2023 and today's order to the Legal Services
Committee of this Court for their needful at the earliest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
