Munikrishnappa vs Venkatamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1053 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              R.S.A.NO.1479/2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:

MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O. VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE
MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562 101.                ... APPELLANT
        [BY SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA, APPELLANT (ABSENT)]

AND:

VENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE
MANDIKAL HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562 101.              ... RESPONDENT

       [BY SRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA G.Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R]

     THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2017
PASSED IN R.A.NO.63/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
13.06.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

    THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     2



                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant through counsel

Sri Shivareddy K.N. and Sri G.S. Bhat, learned counsel has filed

vakalath with NOC from Sri Shivareddy K.N. Thereafter,

Sri G.S. Bhat, learned counsel has filed a memo for retirement

dated 21.01.2019 along with acknowledgment for having handed

over the brief to the appellant. On perusal of the

acknowledgment, the appellant has received the entire papers

along with no objection vakalath to engage other advocate of his

choice. Though the same is acknowledged on 21.01.2019 itself,

till date, the appellant has neither engaged any counsel nor

appeared before the Court from the last three years. Hence, it

is clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the

matter and today also, the matter is listed for non-compliance of

office objections for second time and the appellant is absent.

Hence, the memo for retirement filed by Sri G.S. Bhat,

learned counsel is accepted and the appeal is dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST