Karnataka High Court
Smt Vani @ Kokila Vani vs Smt Pushparani M on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt Vani @ Kokila Vani
W/O. Late Ravi .S
2. Miss. Asha
D/O. Late Ravi .S
Both are Residing At
No.108/B/7, 7th Main,
4th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560010.
...Appellants
(By Sri. Mahesh B J., dvocate)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. Smt Pushparani M
BHARATHIDEVI
K KORLAHALLI W/O. Late Balasubramany,
Location: High
Court of Aged About 67 Years,
Karnataka
2. Smt Chandralekha M
W/o Sri. Subramani,
Aged About 62 Years,
3. Smt Shamyala Devi .D
W/o Sri. Dakshinamurthy
Aged About 59 Years,
4. Smt Usha .N
W/o Sri Neelamagam, aged About 57 Years,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
5. Sri Kumaresh Babu M
S/o Late Mohan Swamy,
Aged About 52 Years,
Respondents No.1 to 5
Are residing at
No.20, 3rd Cross,
Adarsh Nagar,
R.T. Nagar Post,
Bangalore-32.
6. The Manager
Bsnl, Halasuru,
Bangalore.
7. The Drawing Officer
BSNL, BGTD,
Telephone House,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore-01.
...Respondents
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1
of Civil Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in
O.S.No.4180/2012 on the file of the XXIX Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-30) and set aside the
judgment and decree dated 7.6.2019 passed in
O.S.No.4180/2012 by the XXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-30), consequently dismiss the suit
filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 in O.S.No.4180/2012 and
pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
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, as informed to him by
his counter-part in the trial Court, the appellant No.1 died
about one and half years back. In the absence of
instructions and co-operation by the appellants, he could
not comply the office objections. He also submits that it is
for the same reason, cost is also not paid.
2. On 26.05.2023, this Court has made the following
observations :
" Learned counsel for the appellants, who is
present physically in the Court, once again prays for
time to comply the office objections.
By making a detailed observation, as a final
opportunity and making it clear that, in case the
office objections are not complied within two days,
the Court would proceed to pass appropriate orders,
including dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance
of office objections, a short accommodation was
granted on the previous date of hearing.
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
Despite the above, the appellant has not
complied the office objections. Hence, granting of
further time of one week as prayed for by him would
be only on cost.
As such, imposing a cost of `1,000/- payable
by the appellants to the Legal Services Committee of
this Court within three days from today and filing a
compliance memo along with original receipt in the
registry to that effect within the said time, as a final
last opportunity, ten days time is granted to comply
with office objections.
In case, if the office objections are not
complied with in their entirety and cost is not paid
within the said time, registry to list the matter on
12.06.2023, on which day, the Court may proceed to
pass appropriate orders, including dismissal of the
appeal for non-compliance of office objections."
In spite of the above, admittedly the cost imposed
is not paid nor the office objections are complied with,
which inter alia includes correctly giving the details of the
trial Court, correctly stating the designation of the Court
name in the main cause title, correctly stating the
provision of RFA, mentioning the present age of the
parties, correctly mentioning the rank of the parties,
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
mentioning the Pincode and mentioning the Executant
name in blank letters beneath their signature in the
Vakalath.
It is not understood that, at least for compliance of
these office objections, why any instructions from the
client/appellants was required. There are more than one
appellants in this appeal. As such, there was no
prohibition for the other appellant to proceed in complying
the office objections and to co-operate with their counsel.
Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that one of the appellant is died about an year
and half back and is not getting any contact from the
other appellant, would clearly go to show that the
appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal
and to comply the office objections.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections and also for
non-prosecution.
NC: 2023:KHC:20084
RFA No. 1981 of 2019
The unpaid cost can be recovered by the beneficiary
of the cost by executing the order dated 26.05.2023 and
today's order as decree and also as arrears of land
revenue. To enable the beneficiary, the registry is
directed the transmit a certified copy of the order dated
26.05.2023 and today's order to the said beneficiary free
of cost, immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BK
