Vithal S/O Hajappa Lamani vs Yankamma W/O Chidambar Kulkarni
2023 Latest Caselaw 873 Kant

                                        -1-




                                               RFA No. 100550 of 2019

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                     DATED THIS THE 13TH 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. 100550/2019 (PA/DE/IN-)
             BETWEEN:

                   VITHAL S/O HAJAPPA LAMANI
                   AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O: GANI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
                   DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.

                                                         ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. PRAKASH N HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
             AND:

             1.    YANKAMMA W/O CHIDAMBAR KULKARNI
                   (D/O MADHWACHARI JOSHI),
                   AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
                   R/O: RARAVI, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA,
                   DIST: BALLARI-583121.

             2.    GOPALKRISHNA S/O CHIDAMBAR KULKARNI
                   AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally
signed by
JAGADISH
                   R/O: RARAVI, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA,
TR
Date:
                   DIST: BALLARI-583121.
2023.01.18
16:02:48           (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
+0530
                   RESPONDOENT NO.1 AS MGM)

             3.    CHIDAMBAR S/O GOPALARAO KULKARNI
                   AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O: RARAVI, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA,
                   DIST: BALLARI-583121.
                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
             (BY SRI.SANJAY B CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
             (R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1) (R3-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
                                -2-




                                        RFA No. 100550 of 2019

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.04.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.85/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT, 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

Learned counsel for the appellant physically present

and prays for two more weeks' time to file paper book.

The learned counsel does not give any reason for

seeking further time. Though this Court brought to his

notice that sufficient time has already been granted to him

by making it clear on 08.12.2022 that the appeal would be

liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution and for non-

filing of paper book, still the learned counsel keeps mum

and does not react. Even though the Court expressed its

view that for not showing any reason for seeking some

more time, the Court may proceed to dismiss the matter,

the learned counsel shakes his head and says no objection

for the same.

Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance and for non-prosecution.

RFA No. 100550 of 2019

Consequently, pending IAs are disposed off as having

become infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR