Basamma vs Renukamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 6862 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:35315
                                                        RSA No. 1835 of 2021




                        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. 1835 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                         BASAMMA
                         W/O LATE NINGAPPA
                         DEAD BY LRS

                   1.    MALAMMA W/O H.MALLAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
                         R/AT HEDAGIHALLI VILLAGE,
                         DEBBEGHATTA HOBLI,
                         TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227

                   2.    RAMAIAH S/O RAMAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
                         R/AT PUTTAMADIHALLI VILLAGE,
                         KASABA HOBLIL,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T            TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           3.    RATHNAMMA D/O RAMAIAH,
KARNATAKA
                         AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                         R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                         MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
                         TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227

                   4.    RAJANNA S/O RAMAIAH,
                         AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                         R/AT PUTTAMADIHALLI VILLAGE,
                         KASABA HOBLI,
                         TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:35315
                                    RSA No. 1835 of 2021




5.   INDRAMMA D/O RAMAIAH,
     W/O SHANKARAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/AT PARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
     TIPATURU TALUK-572227

6.   SHEELA D/O RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     R/AT MATTIHALLI VILLAGE,
     HONNAVALLI HOBLI,
     TIPATURU TALUK-572227

7.   ANNAPOORNA D/O RAMAIAH,
     W/O RUDRESH,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     R/AT PUTTAMADIHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227

8.   YATHISHKUMAR S/O RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     R/AT PUTTAMADIHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227
                                           ...APPELLANTS

       (BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   RENUKAMMA
     W/O RAJASHEKARAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     R/AT GEDDALEHALLI VILLAGE,
     HONAVALLI HOBLI,
     TIPATURU TALUK,
     AND PRESENTLY
     R/AT SOPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
     TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227
                                          ...RESPONDENT
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:35315
                                       RSA No. 1835 of 2021




      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED        18.01.2021
PASSED IN RA.NO.13/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE. ALLOWING          THE
APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 23.11.2015      PASSED IN O.S.NO.8/2012   ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TURUVEKERE.

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



                          ORDER

Learned counsel for appellants is absent.

This matter is listed 5th time before this Court for non

compliance of office objections and the counsel for

appellant has not complied with the office objections and

this Court in the earlier occasion has imposed the cost of

Rs.500/- payable at the Registry, and inspite of the said

order also, the counsel for appellants has not complied

with the office objections. This Court in the earlier order

made it clear that if the office objections are not complied,

the appeal will be dismissed.

NC: 2023:KHC:35315 RSA No. 1835 of 2021

Hence, in view of the earlier order dated 12.09.2023,

the appeal is dismissed for non compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RHS