Regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against dismissal of suit for partition. Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to appear, comply with office objections, or file a memo of dismissal despite multiple opportunities.
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, non-filing of affidavit, and non-appearance.
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 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A. No.878 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. MEENAKSHI N W/O RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, TAILOR PNO.9 PARVATHI NAGARA, LAGGERE BENGALURU-560058
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR T.R., AND SRI MANJUNATHA.K., ADVOCATES-ABSENT)
AND:
S/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BISALEHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK
2 . MAHADEVAPPA
S/O MARIYIAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(a) SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2
RFA.No.878/2019
2(b) RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
2(c) SMT. PREMA D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4(a) SRI SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
4(b) SMT. PRAMEELA D/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
NOS.2 TO 4 AND 4(a) & 4(b) ARE R/A BIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JYOTHI NAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
5 . UMESHA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BISALEHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
RFA.No.878/2019
3
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears for the appellant either physically or through video conference. In spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied with the office objections. On 26.11.2021, as a last chance, a week’s time was granted to comply the office objections, despite which, the appellant has neither complied the office objections nor shown any reason for non-compliance or for his non-appearance. The order sheet would also go to show that on the previous two dates of hearing, the appellant had remained absent. On 24.11.2021, the matter was passed over at the request of learned counsel for the appellant to enable him to file a memo seeking dismissal of the appeal as prayed for by him.
RFA.No.878/2019
4
Sd/JUDGE
mv
Meenakshi N
Nagarajappa
Mahadevappa
Nanjamma
Ravikumar
Prema
H.B.Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
