Dismissed

Sri M. Ramakrishnappa v. Venkatappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2023RFA/127/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal No. 127 of 2014 before the High Court of Karnataka. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution after multiple adjournments were granted for filing the Paper Book and paying costs, noting the appellant's lack of representation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear or file the required Paper Book after recurring adjournments.

Sri M. Ramakrishnappa Vs Venkatappa Since… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19190 RFA No. 127 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2014 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA SON OF MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT THONDALA VILLAGE HOLUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRIC-563101. …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M., & SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATES [ABSENT])

¶10

AND:

¶11

VENKATAPPA

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT CHOWDAMMA WIFE OF LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶14

SMT MUNIVENKTAMMA WIFE OF LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶15

SMT KAMAKSHAMMA D/O OF LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶16

SMT VENKATARATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:19190 RFA No. 127 of 2014

¶19

SRI CHINNAPPA SON LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶20

MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT CHENNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA WIFE OF BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS GANDLAHALLI VILLAGE SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶21

SMT LAKSHMANA S/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶22

SRI MUNIYAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

¶23

SMT LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶24

R6 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT THONDALA VILLAGE HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6: NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S V/O DATED: 10.06.2016: NOTICE TO R5 IS H/S V/O DATED: 03.01.2019: NOTICE TO R7 & R9 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED: APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED V/O DATED: 20.01.2020 APPEAL AGAISNT R3, R4 & R8 IS DISMISSED V/O DATED: 11.02.2021)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAISNT THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2013 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO. 45/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

¶27

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19190 RFA No. 127 of 2014

¶28

AND CJM, KOLAR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 20 RULE-48 R/W SECTION 151 AND 54 OF CPC.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

On 20.01.2020, one week’s time was granted to pay process fee in respect of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 8, failing which it was ordered that the appeal against said respondents stands dismissed and since no steps were taken in respect of deceased respondent No.2, appeal against respondent No.2 was abated.

¶32

Again, on 11.02.2021, since no steps were taken despite the order dated 20.01.2020, appeal against respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 8 was dismissed.

¶33

On 03.03.2021, the matter was called thrice and since there was no representation for the appellant, it was adjourned to 10.03.2021.

¶34

On 10.03.2021, eight weeks time was granted to file Paper Book.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:19190 RFA No. 127 of 2014

¶37

On 27.07.2022, when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and Paper Book was also not filed. Hence, a week’s time was granted to the appellant to file the Paper Book subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/to Advocates’ Association Library Fund, High Court of Karnataka. Again, on 17.01.2023, eight more weeks time was granted to file the Paper Book.

¶38

Again, when the matter was listed on 26.05.2023, none appeared for the appellant both in the monk as well as afternoon sessions and cost was also not paid. As a last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today, i.e., 06.06.2023.

¶39

Today also there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and the earlier order of this Court has not been complied with. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

¶40

Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri M. Ramakrishnappa v. Venkatappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Ramakrishnappa v. Venkatappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

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

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs Taffy Appliances Private Limited

R Krishna Murthy Vs Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

Kotebagilu Karibasappa Vs Smt. Mallamma

Srinivas S Devathi Vs Union of India

C Manju S/O Channaraya Reddy Vs Munivenkataramanappa S/O Munivenkatappa

R P Sharma I P S Vs Ashok Kumar