Sri. M. P. Mallappaa vs Smt. Gowramma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1908 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                         RSA No. 894 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2019 (PAR)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. M.P.MALLAPPAA
                         S/O. LATE M. M. PARVATHAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

                   2.    SMT. SHIVALINGAMMA
                         W/O. M. P. MALLAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

                         BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                         MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
                         JAYAPURA HOBLI,
                         MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
                                                             ...APPELLANTS

                            (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T      AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          1.    SMT. GOWRAMMA
                         W/O. CHAMAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

                   2.    SMT. SHIVAMMA
                         W/O. BASAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

                   3.    SMT. SUNDRAMMA
                         W/O. RUDRAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                               -2-
                                      RSA No. 894 of 2019




4.   SMT. NEELAMMA
     W/O. GURUMALLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

5.   SRI. M. P. MAHADEVAPPA
     S/O. LATE M. M. PARVATHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

6.   SRI. VEERARAJU
     S/O. KOORNANJAIAHNA NANJAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 1 - 6 ARE
     RESIDING AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JAYAPURA HOBLI,
     MYSURU TALUK-570 008.

7.   SRI. VEERABHADRA
     S/O. LATE D. RUDRAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

8.   SRI. BASAVA
     S/O. LATE D. RUDRAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 7 & 8
     RESIDING AT GARDEN LAND HOUSE,
     MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JAYAPURA HOBLI,
     MYSURU TALUK-570 008.

9.   SRI. M. P. MALLAPPAA
     S/O. LATE M. M. PARVATHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JAYAPURA HOBLI,
     MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

 (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 TO R4)
                                 -3-
                                            RSA No. 894 of 2019




     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN
RA NO.238/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU DISPOSING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1286/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellants is absent.

2. This appeal was filed in 2019 and matter was listed

before the Court on 02.02.2022 and this Court granted two

weeks time to comply with the office objections and inspite of

the same, the office objections are not complied with. The

matter was again listed on 02.03.2023 and this Court, in the

ends of justice, granted two weeks time to comply with the

office objections on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- and inspite

of it, the office objections are not complied with.

3. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the

appellants and the counsel has not paid the paid cost and also

not complied with the office objections. On the previous date

of occasion itself on 02.03.2023, it was made clear that, if the

RSA No. 894 of 2019

cost is not paid and the office objections are not complied

within two weeks, list the matter for dismissal.

4. Hence, in view of the peremptory order dated

02.03.2023, the appeal is dismissed for non-payment of cost

and non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST