The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC due to non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections, despite the matter being listed multiple times.
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 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100489 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. GIRISHANKAR S/O MANJEGOUDA UDAYAVAR AGE:ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: ANKUSH ARCADE, MUNICIPAL WARD NO.46, SHOP NO.B-31, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. KALE, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) )
AND:
1 . SMT. SHARADADEVI W/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN AGE: ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO.8, PRASHANT COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
2
4 . UMESH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN AGE: ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.8, PRASHANT COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
5 . A. B. SUDARSHAN AGE: ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: DEVELOPING WORK, PROPRIETOR OF ANKUSH ARCADE, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI.
6 . MAHESH S/O DEVDAS BADDI AGE: ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAI ELECTRONICS, RAMANUJ COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI. … RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS AND DECREE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HUBBALLI, PASSED IN O.S.NO.104/2007 DATED 04.02.2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.35/2013 DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.104/2007, ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is called twice, there is no
representation on behalf of the appellant.
3
The appeal is filed in the year 2018. The appeal is listed for orders regarding non compliance of office objections for fourth time. As already noted above, the matter is called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed for non prosecution and also for non compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
MRK
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHRI. GIRISHANKAR S/O MANJEGOUDA UDAYAVAR
SMT. SHARADADEVI W/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
SMT. GANGU W/O BASAVARAJ DIGGAVI
SATISH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
UMESH S/O GURUSIDDAPPA UPPIN
A. B. SUDARSHAN
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
