Dismissed

Smt Muniyamma v. Sri Hosabanna

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021RFA/2076/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC. The court held that the appellant failed to comply with office objections and did not pay costs after numerous opportunities, indicating a lack of interest in proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, non-compliance of office objections, and non-payment of costs.

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Hosabanna — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2076 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE THAYAPPA D/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1/61 VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, MOOKANADAPPALI, HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DIST.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHY S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . SRI HOSABANNA S/O LATE NANJANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT INDALAVADI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BIDARAHALLI P.O. ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶12

RFA 2076/2017

¶13

¶14

2 . SRI AGADOORAPPA S/O HOSABANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT INDALAVADI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BIDARAHALLI P.O. ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶15

3 . SMT RADHAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA D/O HOSBANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶16

4 . SRI GOPALA S/O HOSBANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT INADIVADI VILLAGE BIDARAGUPPA P O ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶17

5 . SRI JAYANNA S/O HOSBANNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT INADIVADI VILLAGE BIDARAGUPPA P O ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶18

6 . SRI NAGESH S/O HOSBANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT INADIVADI VILLAGE BIDARAGUPPA P O ATTIBELE HOBLI

¶19

¶20

RFA 2076/2017

¶21

ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶22

7 . SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O OPP KEB QUARTERS ANEKAL ROAD ATTIBELA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST

¶23

8 . SMT SHAKUNTALA D/O KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O OPP KEB QUARTERS ANEKAL ROAD ATTIBELA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST

¶24

9 . SMT PRABHAVATHI D/O KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O OPP KEB QUARTERS ANEKAL ROAD ATTIBELA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST 10 . SMT THANUSHKOTTI AMMAL W/O LATE JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/O HOSUR TOWN NOW AT H S R LAYOUT BANGALORE.

...RESPONDENTS

RFA 2076/2017

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2017, PASSED IN O.S.NO.824/2014, BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUFC AT ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ETC.

¶29

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically present in the Court submits that despite his maximum effort, he could not contact his client (appellant), as such, he could not comply the office objections.

¶32

The said submission makes it ample clear that appellant is not evincing any interest in proceeding with the matter though his learned counsel claims that he is attempting to contact his client.

¶33

Not less than six opportunities have already been granted to the appellant to comply the office objections, still the appellant has not complied the same. The cost imposed on more than one occasion totaling to `1,000/-

¶34

¶35

RFA 2076/2017

¶36

also has not been paid by the appellant in this matter. Sufficient opportunities even as final last chance and again as a last chance were all given to the appellant as could be seen in the detailed observation made by this Court on 05.01.2021, 13.01.2021, 28.01.2021 and 06.02.2021. Despite the same, since the appellant is not evincing any interest, I am of the view that this appeal be dismissed for non prosecution and for non compliance of office objections and for non payment of the costs.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sac*

Smt Muniyamma v. Sri Hosabanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Muniyamma v. Sri Hosabanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala J Vs Udayshankar S

Sri Narayanappa Vs Smt Krishnamma

Sri Narayanappa Vs Sri R Gangadhar

Shri Umashankar Vs Smt Nethravathi S K

Smt Kalpana Vs Smt. Asha N Kotai

Nanjegowda Vs Smt. Bhagyamma