Prakash v. Mohan
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal under Section 100 CPC concerning Partition, the appellant's counsel was absent and failed to comply with court objections. The court was ready to dismiss for default but ultimately dismissed the appeal on default due to non-compliance.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed for default due to non-compliance with office objections and absence of counsel.
What the court decided
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
R.S.A. NO.100830/2016 (PART & SEP. POSS)
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH SHIVAPPANAIK KHARAPANAHALLI, AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/AT: EWS-466, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANT P SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
- MOHAN SHIVAPPANAIK KHARAPANAHALLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS IL.RS.,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC can be considered when the appellant's counsel is absent and office objections remain uncomplied.
Whether non-compliance with office objections grants the court authority to dismiss the appeal by default.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Prakash Shivappanaiik Kharapanahalli
- respondent
Mohan Shivappanaiik Kharapanahalli (deceased) & LRs
- respondent
Vimala W/O Narayan Katti (deceased) & LRs
- respondent
Shobha W/O Mohan Bellary (deceased) & LRs
- respondent
Shashikala W/O Hanamanta Patil
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/100830/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court