A regular second appeal filed against dismissal of a first appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections due to five-year delay without representation.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100323 OF 2017 (FDP)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S.B.SHAIKH., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
2
3
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER, DATED 01.12.2016, PASSED IN R.A.NO.182/2015 BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE I.A. FILED UNDER SEC.5 OF LIMITATION ACT AND DISMISSING THE ENTIRE APPEAL THE APPEAL BY UPHOLDING ORDER PASSED IN F.D.P. NO. 33/2010 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDE, BELAGAVI, DATED 14.01.2015 AND R.A.NO. 182/2015.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
There is no representation on behalf of appellants.
As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal
is filed on 13.04.2017. Now we are almost completing the year 2022. It’s been five years. So far office objections are not complied with.
As already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of appellants. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is
4
dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance
of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN
Smt. Sugandha Mahatru Mandolkar and others
Shri. Nemani Bhamanna Mandolkar and others
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
