Karnataka High Court
Hanumakka vs Rangamma on 29 May, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastrypresided Byhbpsj
-1-
RFA No. 1130 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Hanumakka
W/O Jangamaiah
Aged About 65 Years,
R/At No.218/207
Bestara Beedi, Yelahanka
Bangalore-560 064
...Appellant
(By Sri. Babu, Advocate)
And:
Rangamma
W/O Late Sri Y P Nanjappa
Since Dead by her LRs.
(Her LRs already recorded
as Respondent/Defendant No.2 and 3
Digitally signed
by BANGALORE
MADHAVACHAR
VEENA
1. Sri Y N Manjunath
Location: High S/O Late Y P Nanjappa
Court of
Karnataka Aged About 43 Years,
2. Sri Nagesh Y N
S/O Late Y P Nanjappa
Aged About 41 Years,
Defendants 1 to 2 are
R/at Masjid Road, Yelahanka
Banglaore-560 064
3. Sri P N Narasimhaiah
S/O Late Pillappa,
Aged About 71 Years,
-2-
RFA No. 1130 of 2020
R/at Geetha Nilaya, 12th Cross,
14th Ward, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 064
...Respondents
***
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records from the
Court below; to set aside the judgment and decree partly decreed
passed by the XXXIX Addl.City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, in
O.S.No.2514/2009 dated 16.04.2013 by allowing the appeal filed by
the appellant; to grant such other relief or reliefs in favour of the
appellant by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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
None appear for the appellant either physically or
through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for
the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that, in this appeal is of the year 2020, after granting
several and sufficient opportunities to comply the office
objections, this Court had passed a peremptory order on
the date 07-12-2021 along with imposing cost and granted
some more time for the appellant to comply the office
RFA No. 1130 of 2020
objections. However, the appellant neither paid the
cost nor complied the office objections. Thereafter, by an
order dated 10-06-2022, the appellant got the said
peremptory order recalled and once again got four more
weeks' time to comply the office objections. Even after
getting the peremptory order recalled, the appellant is not
evincing interest in prosecuting the appeal. There is also
inordinate delay of 2,444 days in filing this appeal. That
being the fact, the appellant is further contributing for the
delay in disposal of this appeal and showing no reasons,
has remained absent in the appeal. Hence, in the light of
the above circumstance, there is no reason for granting
some more time in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
