Karnataka High Court
Mr. Cheyanda A Nachappa vs Cheyanda Aiyappa on 2 June, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:18989
RFA No. 1743 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2019 (PAR)
Between:
1. Mr. Cheyanda A. Nachappa
S/o Sri. C. Aiyappa
Aged 37 years,
2. Mrs. Cheyanda A. Gangamma,
D/o Sri. C. Aiyappa
Aged 35 years,
Both R/at Nariyandada village,
Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District
.....Appellants
(By Sri. Sachin B. S., Advocate)
And:
Digitally signed
by
BHARATHIDEVI
K KORLAHALLI 1. Cheyanda Aiyappa
Location: High
Court of S/o C. Ganapathy,
Karnataka
Aged 71 years,
Residing at Nariyandada village,
Madikeri Taluk,
Kodagu District.
2. Aiyyettira S. Janardhana,
S/o Somappa
Aged 60 years,
Residing at Marandoda Village,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:18989
RFA No. 1743 of 2019
Madikeri Taluk,
Kodagu District
...Respondents
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code, praying to set aside the impugned judgment
and decree dated 05.04.2019 in OS No.53 of 2009 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge Virajpet and decree the suit in OS No.53 of
2009 as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
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 appellants, who is physically
present in the Court, submits that he has filed the
compliance memo for having paid the cost of `2,500/- in
the registry.
The registry to verify the same and do needful.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that
registry has shown in its note that the learned counsel
for the appellant has partially complied the office
objections, but, yet to comply the remaining office
objections. In the said process, the registry has not
mentioned in the proceedings sheet as to which are all the office
objections that are complied and which are all the office objections
NC: 2023:KHC:18989
RFA No. 1743 of 2019
yet to be complied. Needless to say that, registry has to
clearly mention in the proceedings sheet regarding the
details of the office objections and its pendency on every
date of hearing. A vague submission like partially
complied the office objections, but, yet to comply the
office objections, would confuse and in no way assist the
Court in proceeding with the matter.
Learned Registrar (Judicial) to look into this aspect
and warn the concerned officials who have all put their
signatures below the said endorsement by issuing a
warning memo.
3. In spite of the Court bringing to the notice of
learned counsel for the appellant that despite sufficient
opportunities, he has not complied the office objections in
total and registry also has shown that some more office
objections are yet to be complied with, learned counsel for
the appellant is standing without making any submission
in that regard.
4. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that
sufficient opportunities of not less than six times has
NC: 2023:KHC:18989
RFA No. 1743 of 2019
already been granted to comply the office objections and
during which process, in December 2022, a cost of
`2,500/- was also imposed upon the appellant. Despite
the alleged payment of the cost, the appellant is not
evincing any interest in complying the office objections.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk/
