Karnataka High Court
Smt Savitha vs K M Harisha on 11 October, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1283 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHA
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GOLIADKA-VOLALAMBE
HOUSE, GUTHIGAR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574218
2. SMT. VANDANA
W/O RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT GOLIADKA-VOLALAMBE
HOUSE, GUTHIGAR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T D.K.DISTRICT-574218
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.M.HARISHA
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O MOORJI HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
KANAKAMAJALU POST,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574223
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
2. MAS.HRITHIK
S/O K M HARISH
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
3. KUM. JEEVITHA
D/O K.M.HARISH
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT MOORJI HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE AND POST,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574223
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3
SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED
BY THEIR FATHER K.M.HARISHA
4. DEVI PRASAD
S/O LATE RATHNAVATHI
S/O MONAPPA GOWDA
G/S/O SHIVAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT KANICHAR
KANYANA VILLAGE OF
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574279
SURESH S/O LATE RATHNAVATHI
S/O MONAPPA GOWDA
G/S/O SHIVAPPA GOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
5. SMT. PREMALATHA
W/O LATE SURESHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT KANICHAR KANYANA
VILLAGE OF BANTWAL TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574279.
6. MRS. SHRISHA
D/O SMT. PREMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
R/AT KANICHAR
KANYANA VILLAGE OF
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574279
SINCE MINOR REP. BY MOTHER
SMT. PREMALATHA
7. GIRIDHAR
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
MOORJE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE AND POST,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574223
8. SMT. GEETHA
W/O LATE MOHAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O KANICHAR LOCALITY
KANYANA VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-5742798
9. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O K.SHESHAPPA GOWDA
R/O UPPALIKE HOUSE
YENEKAL VILLAGE
DEVARAHALLI POST,
SULLIA TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574238
10. SMT. DEVI
W/O T. VASANTHA GOWDA
R/AT THALITHOTA LOCALITY
KAVALAPADNOOR VILLAGE
VOGGA POST, BANTWALA TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574265
11. BHARAT S/O GIRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
R/AT MOORJE LOCALITY
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
KANAKAMAJALU POST
SULLIA TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT -574223
12. KUM. NAMITHA
D/O GIRIDHARA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
R/AT MOOJE LOCALITY
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
KANAKAMAJALU POST
SULLIA TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574223
SINCE MINOR REP BY HER FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN GIRIDHARA
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SULLIA, D.K, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.97/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE, SULLIA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the appellants is present.
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
2. This appeal is filed in the year 2018. The office
has raised the objections and the matter is listed before
the Registrar, Judicial on 05.10.2018 and the counsel was
absent. Thereafter the matter listed before this Court on
09.07.2020 and this Court noted that there is prima facie
typographical error in RA in respect of respondent No.10,
her name is shown as Devi instead of Sridevi, to that
extent the appellants' counsel has to file necessary
application to rectify the same before the jurisdictional
Court so as to meet the office objections. This order was
passed on 09.07.2020, till date the same is not yet
corrected. Once again the matter listed on 22.05.2023 and
the counsel for appellants submits that the objection is
with regard to the identity of a person and seeks for short
accommodation. Even though the time was granted in the
month of May-2023, the same is not corrected by the
counsel and hence, it shows that the appellants' counsel is
not interested in pursuing the matter and for a period of 5
years, the office objections has not been complied.
NC: 2023:KHC:37246
RSA No. 1283 of 2018
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non compliance
of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
