In a revision filed regarding an appeal under CPC, the court refused to grant further time to comply with office objections after six opportunities over four years and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to comply with office objections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.1051 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Muraliamma, Since dead by legal representatives
1(a) Sulapani, Son Muraliamma
R.F.A.No.1051/2017
2
Appellants 1(b) to 1(d) are Residing near railway track, Byappanahalli, Old Madras Road, near Vasu Hotel, Bengaluru - 560 008.
…Appellants
(By Sri. B.V. Sudhakara Reddy for Sri. Channaraya Reddy S. & Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, Advocates)
AND:
On record as plaintiffs 1(b) to (d)
Both are residing at No.61/1, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru - 560 027.
(d) Smt. A. Suneetha, Major in age, Wife of G. Arun Kumar And daughter of late R. Panduranga Naidu, Residing at No.21, 2nd Cross Vasanthanagar West,
R.F.A.No.1051/2017
3
Bengaluru- 560 052.
Respondents 3 to 6 are residing at Old Madras Road, Near Vasu Hotel, Bengaluru - 560 008.
R.F.A.No.1051/2017
4
Muraliamma
Both are residing at Old Madras Road, Near Vasu Hotel, Byappanahalli, Bengaluru.
This R.F.A. is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the entire records in O.S.No.1147/1991 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH No.19, peruse, hear and dismiss the said suit by allowing the appeal with costs, to meet the ends of justice.
This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the appellants, who is physically present in the Court, once again prays for two days' accommodation to comply the office objections.
R.F.A.No.1051/2017
5
making it clear that in case the office objections are not complied within the said date, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.
A perusal of the office objections raised in this appeal would go to show that, a large number of fifteen office objections are yet to be complied and many of them can be complied within few minutes like mentioning the provision of law, mentioning the present age of the parties, stating the name of the executors below the signature in the vakalath, stating the ranking of the executors, counsel's identification signature of executor in vakalath, putting running pagination, etc. For these, the appellants have taken not less than six opportunities in a span of four years. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons to grant any further time to comply the said office objections. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to comply with office objections after multiple opportunities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Muraliamma, Since dead by legal representatives
R. Panduranga Naidu since dead by LRs.
Sri. R. Jayaprakash
Smt. Mala
Sri. Prasad
Sri. Raju
H.B. Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
