Smt Kalamma vs B.N. Lingarajachari
2023 Latest Caselaw 906 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

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

                R.S.A.NO.1708/2017 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. KALAMMA
       W/O. LATE POORVACHARI
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

2.     MAHENDRACHARI
       S/O. LATE POORVACHARI
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

       THE APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS
       R/O. BADA VILLAGE - 577 514
       DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.       ... APPELLANTS

          [BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]
AND:

1.     B.N. LINGARAJACHARI
       SON OF LATE NAGALINGACHARI
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2.     SHILPACHARI
       SON OF LATE NAGALINGACHARI
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3.     B.N. MANJUNATHACHARI
       SON OF LATE NINGACHARI
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

4.     SRI B.N. GEETHA
       W/O. SHANKARACHARI
                                    2



     D/O. LATE NINGACHARI
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

5.   B.N. NAGARAJACHARI
     SON OF LATE NINGACHARI
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

6.   SMT. GOWRAMMA
     W/O. H. VEERABHADARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

     THE RESPONDENTS ARE
     AGRICULTURISTS,
     R/O.BADA VILLAGE-577 514.
     DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT             ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2016
PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.07.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.412/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

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

No representation on behalf of the appellants.

2. This matter is listed in the orders for non-filing of

typed copy of judgment of R.A. vide order dated 11.02.2020.

Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 29.10.2022, learned

counsel for the appellants was absent. However, final

opportunity was given and ordered to list the matter on

17.11.2022. On 17.11.2022, in the morning session, this Court

dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and later, during post

lunch session, an application was filed for recalling the order

dated 17.11.2022 and order of dismissal was recalled and

learned counsel for the appellants made the submission that he

has complied with other office objections. Hence, this Court

directed the office to verify and report and further ordered that,

if all the office objections are complied, list the matter for

admission.

3. Thereafter, the office has raised the objection

regarding non-filing of typed copy of judgment of R.A. vide order

dated 11.02.2020. Inspite of time being granted to furnish the

typed copy of judgment of R.A. vide order dated 11.02.2020

granting one week time, the same is not filed. Even though the

appeal was filed in the year 2017 and number of opportunities

were given to comply with the office objections, till date, the

office objections are not complied with.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office

objection.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST