Ameer S/O Ibrahim Shaikh vs Smt. Manjula D/O Nagesh Raikar
2024 Latest Caselaw 9862 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Ameer S/O Ibrahim Shaikh vs Smt. Manjula D/O Nagesh Raikar on 4 April, 2024

                                           -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:6109
                                                     RFA No. 100321 of 2018




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                   DHARWAD BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                         BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

                     REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100321/2018(DEC)

                BETWEEN:

                AMEER S/O. IBRAHIM SHAIKH,
                AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
                OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KENGERI ROAD,
                MURGOD VILLAGE, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
                DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.   SMT. MANJULA D/O. NAGESH RAIKAR,
                     AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                     R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
                     ANAND NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI.

Digitally
                2.   SMT. VRUNDABAI CHANDRAKANT KAGALKAR,
signed by
MANJANNA E
                     AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location:            R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
High Court of
Karnataka            ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
                     OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.

                3.   SMT. PRAMILA W/O. GANAPATI KAGALKAR,
                     AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                     R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
                     ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
                     OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.

                4.   SMT.PUSHPA W/O. MANJUNATH REVANKAR,
                     AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                     R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
                     ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
                     OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.
                             -2-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:6109
                                      RFA No. 100321 of 2018




5.   SMT. SAVITRI W/O. NAGESH RAIKAR,
     AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
     ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
     OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.

6.   SMT. MUKTA D/O. NAGESH RAIKAR,
     AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
     ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
     OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.

7.   THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
     CORPORATION, HUBBALLI,
     BY ITS COMMISSIOER.

8.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3,
     THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD
     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
     HUBBALLI.

9.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY ITS SECRETARY TO
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU.

10. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
    OLD-HUBBALLI POLICE STATION,
    OLD-HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.

11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
    DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD,
    D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD.28.04.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.358/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI,
DISMISSING    THE  SUIT   FILED  FOR   DECLARATION    AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PERMENENT INJUNCTION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:6109
                                       RFA No. 100321 of 2018




                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to

comply the office objections.

2. The appeal is of the year 2018. The office has

raised so many office objections and the same were not

complied with. Pursuant to the same, the appeal was came

to be dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2019. In-spite of

that, office objections are not complied with.

3. It appears that the appellants are not interested

in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

EM/CT-ASC