Sri. M. Rajanna vs Smt. Ramakka
2024 Latest Caselaw 3271 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. M. Rajanna vs Smt. Ramakka on 2 February, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:4605
                                                       MFA No. 6451 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6451 OF 2021 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. M. RAJANNA
                         S/O LATE C.M.MUNIYAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                         R/AT NO.1
                         MUNISWAMY GOWDA GARDEN
                         NEELANSANDRA
                         BENGALURU-560 041.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT

                               (BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.     SMT. RAMAKKA
                          W/O LATE MUNISAMAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

                   2.     SRI NANJUNDAPPA
                          S/O LATE MUNISAMAPPA
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T             AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           3.     SRI SUBBARAYAPPA
KARNATAKA                 S/O LATE MUNISAMAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                   4.     SRI GOPALAPPA
                          S/O LATE MUNISAMAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

                   5.     NAGARAJ @ NAGESH
                          S/O LATE MUNISAMAPPA
                          AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

                          BOTH ARE R/AT GATTAHALLI VILLAGE
                          HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI
                             -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC:4605
                                  MFA No. 6451 of 2021




      ANEKAL TALUK-560 109
      BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

6.    SRI MUNISWAMY
      S/O LATE C. MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

6(a) SMT RAJESHWARI
     D/O LATE M. MUNISWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

6(b) SMT. KALAVATHY
     D/O LATE M. MUNISWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

7.    SRI M. THAYAPPA
      S/O LATE C. MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

8.    SMT. RENUKA
      W/O M. THAYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

9.    SMT. RASHMI
      D/O M. THAYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

10.   SMT. MADHU
      D/O M. THAYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

11.   SRI PRAVEEN
      S/O M. THAYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
12.   SRI PRADEEP
      S/O M. THAYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT NO.1
      MUNISWAMY GOWDA GARDEN
      NEELASANDRA
      BENGALURU 560 041.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                               -3-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:4605
                                         MFA No. 6451 of 2021




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(s) R/W. SECTION 151
OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DT.
24.08.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.378/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ANEKAL.

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

                          JUDGMENT

This matter is called twice in the morning and also in the

afternoon and no representation on behalf of the appellant.

2. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2024 directed the

learned counsel for the appellant to comply with the office

objections on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- and also made it

clear that if the cost is not paid and the office objections are

not complied within two weeks, list the matter for dismissal.

Inspite of the said order, the cost is not paid and the office

objections are also not complied with.

3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-payment of

cost and non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST