Sri.Vinayak Sachidananda Shetty vs Varada Grameena Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 1109 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RFA No. 100274 of 2019


     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. 100274 OF 2019 (MON)
BETWEEN:

      SRI.VINAYAK SACHIDANANDA SHETTY
      AGE: ABOUT 48 YEARS,
      S/O SACHIDANANDA SHETTY,
      "MAGESH", C/O SAI JEWELLERS,
      SAIKATTA, KARWAR.

                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH P HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    VARADA GRAMEENA BANK
      A BANK CONSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONING
      UNDER THE REGIONAL RURAL
      BANKING ACT, 1976,
      HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
      KUMTA AND BRANCHES ALL OVER
      UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
      AND ONE SUCH BRANCH AT KARWAR,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
      SRI.LAXMINARAYAN MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE.

2.    SRI.SUBRAY SHAMBHU HEGDE
      AGE ABOUT: 48 YEARS,
      S/O SHAMBE HEGDE,
      C/O. D. L. SHETTY COMPOUND,
      ASHRAMA ROAD, KARWAR.

3.    SRI.SANJAY KASHINATH KALGUTKAR
      AGE ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
      S/O KASHINATH KALGHUTKAR,
                             -2-




                                   RFA No. 100274 of 2019


     R/O: GUTTEGALLI VILLAGE,
     KARWAR.

4.   SRI.MANOHAR BALAPPA RAIKAR
     AGE ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
     S/O BALLAPPA RAIKAR,
     MUSLIM GALLI, SIRSI.

5.   SRI.BALAKRISHNA PARAMESHWARA HEGDE
     AGE: ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     C/O VIKAS MEDICALS,
     1ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560040.

6.   SMT.MANGALA SUBRAY NAYAK
     AGE ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
     W/O SRI VINAYAK S. SHETTY
     "NAGESH" C/O SAI JEWELLERS,
     SAIKATTA, KARWAR.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER
XLI RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.11.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, KARWAR IN OS NO.20/2001 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY,
DR. H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant, who is physically

present, submits that despite his instruction to the

appellant, he is not prepared to comply the office

objections including the payment of deficit Court fee.

Hence, he is not in a position to comply the office

objections. He submits that he has no other option but

RFA No. 100274 of 2019

not to resist the Court from passing the order of dismissal

of the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.

In the light of the above, since the appellant himself

is said to be not interested in prosecuting the matter and

also he is not co-operating with the learned counsel, the

appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR