Karnataka High Court
Mallamma Ningabasappa Malekoppa vs Lingabasappa on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, C M Joshi
-1-
RFA No. 100374 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH 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.100374 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAMMA NINGABASAPPA MALEKOPPA
AGE-78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ. YALABURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583238.
2. YALLVVA @ GANGAVVA
W/O. SHIDDAPPA YARASI,
AGE-63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KAVALUR, TQ. KOPPAL-583231
3. SHIVANAKKA @ AKKAMMA
GOVINDARADDI GADAGI,
AGE-58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TALKAL, TQ. YALBURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
4. SHARANABASAVESHWAR
S/O. BASAVARAJ CHEGARADDI,
AGE-48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. D.S. HADAGALI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG - 582102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K L PATIL & SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATES -
ABSENT)
-2-
RFA No. 100374 of 2022
AND:
1. LINGABASAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA MARIGOUDRA @ TEGGINAKERI
AGE-90 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
2. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA MARIGOUDRA
AGE-79 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
3. SUBHASCHANDRA
S/O. NAGAPPA MARIGOUDRA @ TEGGINAKERI
AGE-68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
4. SHIVARADDI
S/O. LINGABASAPPA MARIGOUDRA
AGE-53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
5. PRAKASH
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MARIGOUDRA
AGE-46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
6. NAGARAJ
S/O. SUBHASCHANDRA MARIGOUDRA,
AGE-44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVANKI, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG-582202.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
-3-
RFA No. 100374 of 2022
DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.39/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, RON, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears for the appellants either physically or
through video conference.
Inspite of granting several opportunities of not less
than four times, the appellant has not complied with the
office objections. On 01.09.2022 itself, this Court had
made an observation that in case the office objections are
not complied with within two weeks, the appeal shall be
considered for necessary orders. Thereafter, once again,
on 04.11.2022 two more weeks' time was granted for
compliance of office objections. Inspite of the same, the
appellants have neither complied the office objections nor
have appeared and shown any reasons for non-
compliance. Thus, it has to be inferred that the appellants
are not interested either in prosecuting the matter or
RFA No. 100374 of 2022
complying the office objections. Hence, the appeal stands
dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and for
non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
