Shri.Guru @ Gururaj S/O Rachappa ... vs Smt.Nalini W/O Suresh Ambali
2023 Latest Caselaw 1108 Kant

                           -1-




                                  RFA No. 100258 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
                           AND
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100258/2020 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

      SHRI.GURU @ GURURAJ S/O RACHAPPA BIJAPUR
      AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
      R/O: DESHAPANDE NAGAR,
      HUBBALLI, PIN: 580020,
      TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.    SMT.NALINI W/O SURESH AMBALI
      AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VIJAYAPURA,
      TQ and DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

2.    SHRI.ISHANNA S/O RACHAPPA BIJAPUR
      AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS,
      OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
      HUBBALLI, PIN: 580020,
      TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

3.    SHRI.MALLIKARJUN S/O RACHAPPA BIJAPUR
      AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
      OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
      HUBBALLI, PIN: 580020,
      TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                             -2-




                                    RFA No. 100258 of 2020


     THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD.31.08.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.173/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS
DAY, DR. H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

In this appeal, which is filed on 23.06.2020, the

appellant was required to comply the office objections,

which are trivial in nature like, pagination of the appeal

and furnishing of second set of appeal memorandum. In

spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities not

less than three times, the appellant has not complied the

office objections.

On 01.08.2022, this Court while granting two weeks'

time had made it clear that failing to comply the office

objections within the said time, the matter would be listed

for necessary orders of dismissal for default. Inspite of

such an order and passing of more than five months' time

thereafter, the appellant has not complied the office

objections, which hardly requires a few minutes to comply.

RFA No. 100258 of 2020

As such, there is no point in granting further time.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Consequently, pending IAs do not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR