Sri B D Srinivas vs Sri Guruprasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 4476 Kant

                                       -1-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:24553
                                                  RFA No. 825 of 2022




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                                       BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
                    REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2022 (PAR)
             BETWEEN:
             SRI B D SRINIVAS
             S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
             AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
             R/AT HOUSE No.4, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
             KAMALANAGAR,
             BANGALORE - 560 079.

                                                             ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY D., ADVOCATE)
             AND:
             1. SRI GURUPRASAD
                S/O LATE SHARANA K.NAGARAJAPPA @
                POOJYASRI MAHADEVA SWAMIJI,
Digitally
                AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
signed by
VEENA           RESIDING OF GOMUDHURA NILAYA,
KUMARI B
Location:       1ST CROSS, SLN EXTENSION,
High Court
of
Karnataka       ANANTHARASANAHALLI,
                KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR- 572 106.

             2.   SMT. SHALINI
                  D/O GURUPRASAD,
                  W/O RAMESH BABU,
                  AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                  R/AT No.41/278 PARIMALA NAGAR,
                  ARASINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
                  BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
                             -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC:24553
                                       RFA No. 825 of 2022




3.   SMT. NARASAMMA @ SHIVAMMA,
     W/O LATE SHARANA K.NAGARAJAPPA @
     POOJYASRI MAHADEVA SWAMIJI,
     AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
     RESIDENT OF BASAVAGANGOTHRI
     KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI,
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

4.   SRI. MALLIKARJUN,
     S/O LATE SHARANNA.K.NAGARAJAPPA @
     POOJYASRI MAHADEVA SWAMIJI,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT HOUSE No.195/A,
     1ST MAIN ROAD, KAMALANAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560 079.

5.   SMT. ASHWINI.G.
     D/O GURUPRASAD,
     W/O KUMARASWAMY D.G.
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DODDABELAVADI,
     KANIVE CROSS, THIMMANAHALLI POST,
     CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLLI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2022
PASSED   IN   OS   No.8511/2016   ON   THE   FILE   OF   THE   XIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDE, BENGALURU CITY,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AN SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
                              -3-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:24553
                                        RFA No. 825 of 2022




     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically

present submits that he has complied all the office objections

on 10.07.2023. However in the note put up by the registry as

on 13.07.2023, it is shown that there are two more office

objections which are due for compliance.

2. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal also go to

show that office objections at Sl.No.2 has not been complied

with, as such the submission of the learned counsel that he

has complied all the office objections proves to be incorrect.

3. Considering the fact that several and sufficient

opportunities of not less than five times have already been

granted to him to comply the office objections, including

making detailed observation on 04.07.2023 that, in case if the

office objections are not complied by paying the cost within a

week from the said date, the Court would proceed to dismiss

NC: 2023:KHC:24553 RFA No. 825 of 2022

the appeal for noncompliance of office objections, still the

appellant has not complied the office objections.

Hence, I find no reason to grant some more time, as

such appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK