Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan Mandala vs Sri Uggappa Shetty on 29 May, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastrypresided Byhbpsj
-1-
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
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. 1897 OF 2019 (POS)
BETWEEN:
Sri Mohan Mandala
Aged About 41 Years
S/O Poovappa
Door No 5-113,
Padushedde Village
Post Bondel- 575008
Mangaluru, D. K. District
...Appellant
(By Sri. Sangamesh for Sri. Chandranath Ariga K., Advocate)
And:
Sri Uggappa Shetty
Aged about 78 years,
Digitally signed
by BANGALORE
MADHAVACHAR
S/O. Late. K. Narayana Shetty,
VEENA
Location: High
"Aachemane" House,
Court of
Karnataka Marakada Village,
Post: Kumjathbail - 575 015,
Mangaluru, D.K. District.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Sachin B S.,Advocate)
***
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records in
O.S.No.86/2015 on the file of the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge
-2-
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
and JMFC at Mangaluru; set aside the judgment and decree
dated 24.04.2019 passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Mangaluru, in O.S.No.86/2015; dismiss the suit in
O.S.No.86/2015 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC at Mangaluru; and allow this appeal and grant such
other reliefs as this Court deem fit to grant 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 appellant, who is physically
present in the Court, submits that despite his best efforts
and communication with the appellant, the appellant is not
properly assisting him in complying the office objections,
including the payment of deficit Court fee. With this, he
pleads his helplessness to comply the office objections.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that
in this appeal of the year 2019, sufficient opportunities
have already been granted to the appellant to comply the
office objections. On 17.04.2021, this Court while
granting further time to comply the office objections, had
directed the learned counsel for the appellant to file an
affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance with
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
specific reference to the office objections, from the date of
raising of office objections, till the expiry of further time
that was granted on the said day. Despite the same,
neither the learned counsel for the appellant has filed the
affidavit nor the appellant is evincing any interest in
complying the office objections, in which regard, learned
counsel for the appellant has pleaded his helplessness in
the matter. As such, I do not find any reason to grant
further time in this appeal of the year 2019.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections, as well as for
non-prosecution.
That the cost of a sum of `500/- ordered on the date
22-05-2023 since has not been paid, the beneficiary of the
said cost which is the Legal Services Committee of this
Court is entitled to recover the said amount by treating
the order dated 22-05-2023 and today's order as a decree
and as arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law.
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
Registry to transmit a copy of the order dated
22-05-2023 as well as today's order to the said
beneficiary, i.e. the Legal Services Committee of this
Court, for their needful.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
