Vanaja Shedthi vs Jayaprakash Shetty
2023 Latest Caselaw 6856 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:35317
                                                         RSA No. 406 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2019 (PAR)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    VANAJA SHEDTHI
                         D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
                         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                         "SRI GANESH",
                         UDDALAGUDDE OF
                         HANEHALLI VILLAGE,
                         UDUPI TALUK,
                         P.O.: BARKUR-576210
                                                                   ...APPELLANT

                                (BY SRI VYASA RAO K S.,ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

Digitally signed   1.    JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY
by SHARANYA T            AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          2.    UDAYA KUMAR SHETTY
                         AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

                   3.    ARUNA KUMAR SHETTY
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                   4.    ANITHA SHETTY
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

                   5.    AJEETHA SHETTY
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC:35317
                                   RSA No. 406 of 2019




     RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE
     CHILDREN OF RUDRAMMA SHEDTHI,
     AND R/AT NEERJADDU OF HEGGUNJE VILLAGE,
     UDUPI TALUK, P.O. HEGGUNJE-576101

6.   LAXMI SHEDTHI
     W/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
     R/AT UDDALAGUDDE OF
     HANEHALLI VILLAGE,
     UDUPI TALUK,
     P.O. BARKUR-576210

7.   GOWRI SHEDTHI
     D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     R/AT KRISHNA APARTMENTS,
     POSALAPPA GARDEN, ADUGODI,
     BENGALURU-560030

8.   KUSUMA SHEDTHI
     D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.7, SILVER SPRING,
     TAPOVANA ROAD,
     NASIK-422002

9.   BHARATHI SHEDTHI
     D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     R/AT 802, SECTOR-II,
     KALAMBOLI,
     NEW BOMBAY-410218

10. SANKAMMA SHEDTHI
    W/O KUSHALA SHETTY
    D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
    R/AT NO.14/1,"BANASHREE"
    8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
    BENGALURU-560027
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:35317
                                       RSA No. 406 of 2019




11. VASANTHI SHEDTHI
    W/O RAVI N. SHETTY
    D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    C/O PERFECT AUTO GARAGE,
    NO.1/1, SUBBABBA GARDEN,
    ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560030

12. SUNITHA SHEDTHI
    D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY,
    W/O PRABHAKARA SHETTY,
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
    R/AT NO.31, CHIKKABETTAHALLI,
    ADITYANAGAR, VIDYARANYAPURA,
    BENGALURU-560097
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN
R.A NO.35/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
KUNDAPURA     DISMISSING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2008 PASSED IN OS
NO.90/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AT KUNDAPURA.

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


                          ORDER

This Court vide order dated 12.09.2023 granted two

weeks time when the counsel for appellant sought for time

on payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable at the Registry

and also made it clear that if office objections are not

complied and if cost is not paid within the stipulated time,

NC: 2023:KHC:35317 RSA No. 406 of 2019

the appeal will be dismissed. In spite of the said order, the

counsel for appellant has not paid the cost and also not

complied with the office objections also.

Hence, in view of the order dated 12.09.2023, the

appeal is dismissed for non compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RHS