Dismissed

Tippayya S/O Fakirayya Dharmoji v. Shantavva W/O Shivakallappashettanavar

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022RSA/100219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. The judgment concludes that due to non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution spanning three years without representation, the appeal is unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal No.100219 of 2019 is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and for non-prosecution.

Tippayya S/O Fakirayya Dharmoji Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100219 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . TIPPAYYA S/O FAKIRAYYA DHARMOJI AGE: 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE TQ:KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

SANGAYYA S/O FAKIRAYYA DHARMOJI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

SIDDAYYA S/O FAKIRAYYA DHARMOJI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI.S.S.BAWAKHAN., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHANTAVVA W/O SHIVAKALLAPPASHETTANAVAR AGE:77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

MAHADEVI W/O SHEKHAPPAHALLI

¶16

¶17

AGE:57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD, R/O KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

SAHADEVAPPA S/O SHIVAKALLAPPA SHETTANAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

4. RAMANNA

¶20

S/O SHIVAKALLAPPA SHETTANAVAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD.

¶21

TIPPANNA S/O FAKIRAPPADUNDI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O: KAMDHENU VILLAGE TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST:DHARWAD.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2018, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALGHATAGI, IN R.A.NO.14/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2017, PASSED BY CVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALGHATAGI IN O.S.NO.33/2009.

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Though matter called twice, there is no representation

¶27

on behalf of appellants.

¶28

¶29

The appeal is listed today for orders regarding noncompliance of office objection for fourth time.

¶30

As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed on 12.03.2019. Now we are almost completing the year 2022. It’s been three years. So far office objections are not complied with.

¶31

As already noted above, though matter called twice, there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence,

¶32

the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for noncompliance of office objections and also for non-

¶33

prosecution.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

TKN

Tippayya S/O Fakirayya Dharmoji v. Shantavva W/O Shivakallappashettanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tippayya S/O Fakirayya Dharmoji v. Shantavva W/O Shivakallappashettanavar

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

Mohammad Hussain Vs Smt Noorjahan

Basavanneppa Veerbasappa Vs Krishnappa S/O Yallappa Negalur

Nagappa S/O Shettappa Walikar @ Talwar, Vs Kallappa

Smt.Kasturewwa W/O. Basavanneppa Chandaragi Vs Smt.Balawwa W/O. Basavanneppa Chandaragi

Shekharagouda S/O. Marigouda Patil Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mallaji Basappa S/O M Kuruvetheppa Vs Jyothi Mrthyunaja S/O Channaveerappa