Nagamani W/O Vijay vs Mallamma W/O Parasanna
2023 Latest Caselaw 3954 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC-D:6659-DB
                                                          RFA No. 100103 of 2021




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                             PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                                                AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100103 OF 2021 (MON-)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. NAGAMANI W/O. VIJAY BHASKAR RAO,
                      AGED ABOUT: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                      R/O: RADIO PARK, C. B. BALLARI-583101.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI              AND:

Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
                      1.   SHRI. PARASANNA S/O. V. ADIVAPPA
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA-              SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2023.07.06
14:54:48 +0530
                           SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. PARASANNA
                           AGE: 77 YEARS.
                      2.   NARAYAN S/O. PARASANNA
                           AGE: 55 YEARS.

                      3.   ADIVAMMA D/O. PARASANNA
                           AGE: 45 YEARS.

                      4.   SANNA ADIVAPPA S/O. PARASANNA
                           AGE: 47 YEARS.
                            -2-
                                 NC: 2023:KHC-D:6659-DB
                                     RFA No. 100103 of 2021




5.   PEDDA ADIVAPPA S/O. PARASANNA
     AGE: 45 YEARS.

6.   KRISHNA S/O. PARASANNA
     AGE: 42 YEARS.

7.   HANUMAPPA S/O. PARASANNA
     AGE: 40 YEARS.

8.   ERAMMA D/O. PARASANNA
     AGE: 43 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O: BANDIHATTI,
     COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.

9.   SMT. V. HULIGEMMA D/O. V. ADIVEPPA
     AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O: BANDIHATTI,
     COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583101.

10. SMT. V. CHANDRAMMA D/O. V. ADIVEPPA
    AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O. BANDIHATTI,
    COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.

11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
    REPT. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
    BALLARI-583101.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

                           ---

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.44/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR REFUND OF MONEY.


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                 NC: 2023:KHC-D:6659-DB
                                         RFA No. 100103 of 2021




                             ORDER

This appeal is filed on 09.11.2020. Office has raised

objections.

The matter was listed before the Court on

07.02.2022, 05.07.2022, 18.02.2022, 09.03.2022,

05.07.2022, 24.11.2022, 05.01.2023, 16.01.2023,

25.01.2023, 08.02.2023, 17.02.2023, 07.03.2023,

28.03.2023, 18.04.2023, 25.05.2023 and 21.06.2023.

In spite of granting sufficient opportunity, appellant has

not complied with the office objections.

Further, from perusal of the order dated 25.01.2023,

the appellant has filed an application in I.A.2/2020 seeking

leave of the Court to sue as an indigent person. The

appellant has not submitted whether any enquiry to

ascertain the indigence was conducted by the trial Court

and he was directed to place before the Court the certified

copy of the procedure followed by the trial Court in holding

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6659-DB RFA No. 100103 of 2021

that the appellant is an indigent person and permitting her

to sue as an indigent person.

In spite of the order passed by this Court, the

appellant has not produced certified copy of the procedure

followed by the trial Court in holding that the appellant is

an indigent person. It shows that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non

compliance of the office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab/ct-abn