Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6558 Kant
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33624
RSA No. 1678 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1678 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
2. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
3. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
4. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Digitally signed
S/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH 5. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
6. SHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MUTHAPPA,
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT GUNJUR VILLAGE,
TUBUGEREHOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33624
RSA No. 1678 of 2021
7. CHOWDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O. LATE PAPANNA,
RESIDING AT GUNJUR VILLAGE,
TUBUGERE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
8. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH,
RESIDING AT GUNJUR VILLAGE,
TUBUGEREHOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAMESHA M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATARAJU
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
2. N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NELLUKUNTE,
TUBUGERE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33624
RSA No. 1678 of 2021
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.10057/2019 (OLD NO.19/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is called in the morning session and passed
over. In the afternoon at 2.45 p.m., matter is called, the
counsel again seeks for pass over the matter to comply the
office objections.
2. On perusal of the order it shows that, this Court has
given two weeks time to comply with the office objections and
inspite of it, not complied the office objections. There are 16
office objections and even matter is called in the morning and
passed over and till 2.45 p.m. none of the office objections are
complied. Hence, no ground to keep the matter pending for
compliance. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!