Dismissed

Sri T Mahalingappa v. Sri Lakshminarayanappa

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2021RFA/166/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC. The court held that the appellants had sufficient prior opportunities to comply with an outstanding objection regarding valuation but failed to do so despite a four-year delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections regarding valuation.

Sri T Mahalingappa Vs Sri Lakshminarayanappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

R.F.A.No.166 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri.T. Mahalingappa,

¶8

S/o. late Sri. Byatarayappa @ Thimmaiah, Aged about 65 years.

¶9

Smt. Vijayalakshmi

¶10

D/o. late Sri. Byatarayappa @ Thimmaiah, Aged about 58 years.

¶11

Both are R/at No.H-81, 3^rd Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru - 560 023.

¶12

…Appellants

¶13

(By Smt. Rajeshwari M., Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Sri. Lakshminarayanappa S/o. late Sri. Byatarayappa @ Thimmaiah Since deceased by his LRs.

¶16

1(a) Sri.V. Pulakeshi, S/o. late Sri. Lakshmi Narayappa, Major.

¶17

1(b) Smt. Gowramma D/o. late Sri. Lakshmi Narayanappa Major

¶18

R.F.A.No.166/2015

¶19

¶20

1(c) Smt. V. Yashodha, D/o. Late Sri. Lakshmi Narayanappa, Major.

¶21

1 to 3 are R/at No.79, Mahalakshmi Layout, 1^st Main Road, Bengaluru - 560 058.

¶22

Sri. Venkata Narasappa @ Narasimhaiah, S/o. late Sri. Byatarayappa @ Thimmaiah, Aged about 82 years, Old No.6, new No.8 2^nd Cross, 1^st Cross Road, Magadi Road, Bengaluru - 560 023.

¶23

Sri. Ayyandurai, Father's name not known to The appellant Major.

¶24

Sri. Jabbar Raj, Father's name not known to the Appellant Major.

¶25

Smt. G. Chitra, D/o. late Sri. Govindaswamy, Major.

¶26

Respondents 3 to 5 are R/at 5^th Main, 6^th Cross, Flower Garden, Mariyappanapalya Magadi Road, Bengaluru - 560 023. …Respondents (By Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, Advocate)

R.F.A.No.166/2015

This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records of O.S.No.7504/1980 from the file of the 19^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.18), Bengaluru, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 27-10-2014 passed by the 19^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.7504/1980 and consequently dismiss the suit filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.7504/1980 and grant such other order or directions as this Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

This R.F.A. coming on for orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants is physically present and submits that, since the office objection regarding the non-filing of the relevant copies of the OS for verification of value for the purpose of jurisdiction was raised subsequently, i.e. very latest, the appellants could not comply the office objections.

¶34

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, since four years, the said objection is outstanding. In the said period of four years, several dates of hearing have come and sufficient adjournments have already been granted to the appellants to comply the office objections. As such, the reason

¶35

R.F.A.No.166/2015

¶36

¶37

that the outstanding office objection regarding the valuation is a latest office objection raised by office and that the appellants did not have sufficient opportunity to comply the office objections, is not acceptable. The original suit is of the year 1980, as such, it is forty-one years' old suit, in which the appeal has not yet seen the light of its first hearing due to non-compliance of office objections since six years. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons for granting some more time to comply the office objections. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office objections.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

BMV*

Sri T Mahalingappa v. Sri Lakshminarayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Mahalingappa v. Sri Lakshminarayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr v Manoharlal Thekri Vs Smt Latha Karunan

Smt Gauher Muneer Vs Shri Ashraf Khan

Smt G S Chayadevi Vs G S Suresh Kumar

Mrs. Revanthi Bai Vs Smt. Ayalakshmi

Smt Muraliamma Vs R Panduranga Naidu

R Vinay Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd.