The High Court of Karnataka heard a RFA against a partition decree. The appellant failed to appear physically or via video conference despite multiple opportunities and orders imposing costs. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and non-compliance.
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution.
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 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.2119 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SMT J R GAYATHRI D/O LATE J B RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.110, ASHOKA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS SRIKANTESHWARANAGARA, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 086. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJANNA H AND SRI.J.T.GIREESHA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1 . SRI J R SATHISH KUMAR S/O LATE J B RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.E-339 "SRUSTI" 16TH CROSS ROAD, HIG, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560054
2 . SRI J R RAVINDRA S/O LATE J B RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT JARABANDAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDHANURU TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
R.F.A.No.2119/2017
2
3 . SMT. SUVARANA RAJEEVAKOTHURWAR W/O RAJEEV KOTHURWAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.500, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BHAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-19
4 . SRI N P SRINATH S/O N L PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.30/1, MARKET ROAD, V V PURAM BANGALORE-04
5 . SMT. VIJAYA PRASAD W/O MADHAVA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1080 RAMACHANDRARAO RAO BANGARAPET-563 114.
6 . SMT. LAKSHAMI K TALLAM W/O T N KOUSHIK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT T.V. COMPLEX, BVK IYENGAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053.
7 . SRI B G MAHENDRA S/O LATE B N GOPALAKRISHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KARUNA KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
7(a)SMT. NIRAMALAMMA W/O LATE B G MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT "KARUNA"
R.F.A.No.2119/2017
3
KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIMOGGA.
7(b) . SMT SWAPNA D/O LATE B G MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT "KARUNA" KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIMOGGA.
8 . SRI RAMCHANDRA B ATNOOR S/O BALACHANDRA S ATNOOR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.36 MOUNT JAY EXTENSION 4TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560 019.
9 . SRI SOMASHEKAR B ATNOOR S/O BALACHANDRA S ATNOOR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.36 MOUNT JAY EXTENSION 4TH MAIN 2ND CROSS HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560 019
10 . SMT. R S DEVIKUMARI W/O SRI SHANKARPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.379, 4TH CROSS 4TH MAIN SRINAGAR BANGALORE-560 050.
11 . SRI B V ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI B N VENKATESHMURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.256, 1TH CROSS
R.F.A.No.2119/2017
4
BSK 3RD STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 085. 12 . SRI S R SRINIVAS GUPTHA S/O SRI.S.G.RADHAKRISHANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SIRA MAIN ROAD, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT
14 . SRI R RAVINDHRANATH S/O SRI SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SIRA MAIN ROAD, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT 15 . SRI K A VENKATESHKUMAR S/O SRI K G A GUPTA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.13/645, BRUGAL MUTT ROAD, V V PURAM BANGALORE-04 ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.3043/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
R.F.A.No.2119/2017
5
O R D E R
None appear for the appellant either physically or through video conference.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, in this appeal of the year 2017, inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunity of eight times, the appellant has not complied the office objections. Even opportunity as a last chance, on two occasions was granted, by imposing cost, but the appellant has not complied the office objections. Even after payment of cost by the appellant, time was granted to comply the office objections, despite which neither office objections are complied nor reasons are shown for non-compliance. None appear in the matter. No reasons are forthcoming for his nonappearance today.
Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections and for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the RFA should be dismissed due to non-compliance of office objections and non-appearance of appellant?
How to deal with defaulting appellant who failed to appear despite multiple opportunities?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J R Gayathri
J R Sathish Kumar
J R Ravindra
Sutarna Rajeevakothurwar
N P Srinath
Vijaya Prasad
Dr. H.B.Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
