Karnataka High Court
Smt Kasiyamma vs Sri M Govindaraj on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20080
RFA No. 590 of 2021
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. 590 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
Smt Kasiyamma
D/o Late Manickam
W/o Rajamani
Aged About 69 Years
R/At 146, 2nd Main Road
Narasimhaswamy Extension
Nandini Layout, Bangalore.
...Appellant
(By Sri. B Janardhana.,Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri M Govindaraj
S/O Alte Manickam
Hindu, Aged About 59 Years
Digitally signed R/At 118/8-1
by
BHARATHIDEVI
K KORLAHALLI 2nd Stage, 3rd Cross, Okalipuram
Location: High
Court of Bangalore-560021.
Karnataka
2. Smt Kanthammal
D/o Late Manickam
Aged About 61 Years
W/o Sri C Govindan
Residing At No.19
39/2, 10th C Main Road
6th Block, Rajajinagar
Bangalore-560010.
Respondents
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20080
RFA No. 590 of 2021
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code, praying to pass orders setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020, passed in
O.S.No.6078/2009 on the file of the XI Addl.City Civil Judge at
Bengaluru (CCH.No.08) and dismiss the same, in the interest of
justice.
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 is physically present in
the Court and attempted to give reasons for non-compliance of
office objections.
2. On 30.05.2023, this Court has made the following
observations :
" None appear.
As a final opportunity, four days time is granted to
comply office objections, failing which, the Court may
proceed to pass appropriate order including dismissal of
the appeal for noncompliance of office objections.
In case, if, office objections are not complied,
registry to list this matter on 12.06.2023."
In spite of the above, the Court noticed that some of the
office objections can be attended to by the learned counsel for
the appellant himself, for which, he does not require any
instructions or co-operation from the appellant. One such
NC: 2023:KHC:20080
RFA No. 590 of 2021
example is correctly mentioning in detail the valuation para in
the memorandum of appeal, properly stitching of page Nos.5
and 6 of the Original Suit decree, filing the typed copy of the
valuation slip and correctly mentioning the case number of the
Original Suit.
3. For these simple objections, several and sufficient
opportunities of not less than three times have been given and
today also, when the Court shown its inclination to grant some
more time, however, with cost of `200/- per day, learned
counsel for the appellant instead of making use of the
opportunity and praying for time, though with payment of cost,
he is attempting to convince the Court that he deserves some
more time.
Since, I do not find any reason to grant further time, the
Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office
objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BK
