The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear or pay the imposed cost.
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution; cost of ₹500 to recover as decree.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:18993 RFA No. 1311 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2019 (POS)
Between:
Smt. Rathnamma, W/o late Sri. Rajappa, Aged about 48 years, R/at II Main, Nanjappa Building, Krishnaiahnapalya, Behing NGEF, Indiranagar post, Bengaluru-560 038.
…Appellant
(By Sri. Nanja Reddy P. N .,Advocate)
And:
Digitally signed by BHARATHIDEVI K KORLAHALLI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:18993 RFA No. 1311 of 2019
…Respondents
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.3896/2012 dated: 02.01.2018 on the file of the XII Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and dismiss the suit filed by the 1st respondent in the interest of justice.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is neither present physically nor through Video Conference. No reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance. In spite of granting sufficient opportunities of not less than five times, the appellant has not complied the office objections.
NC: 2023:KHC:18993 RFA No. 1311 of 2019
Though there are no sufficient reasons to grant further time to comply with office, however in the best interest of justice as a final last opportunity a week’s time is granted to comply with office objection however, imposing a cost of ` 500/- payable by the appellant to the Legal Services Committee of this Court within two days from today and filing a compliance memo along with receipt in the registry to that effect within the said time.
If needful is not done, list the matter on 01.06.2023.”
According to the registry, even the cost imposed by the order dated 23.05.2023 also has not been paid and the compliance memo along with receipt has not been filed in the registry. This shows the non-inclination to comply the office objections by the appellant and to prosecute the matter. Even the learned counsel for the appellant also
has not appeared today nor shown any reasons for non-compliance of office objections.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.
Since the appellant has not paid the cost as ordered on 23.05.2023, the beneficiary, which is Legal Services
NC: 2023:KHC:18993 RFA No. 1311 of 2019
Committee of this Court, is at liberty to recover the cost of `500/- as a decree and as arrears of land revenue from the appellant. To enable the Legal Services Committee in that regard, registry to transmit a copy of today’s order and of order dt 23.5.2023 to the beneficiary/Legal Services Committee of this Court without delay.
Sd/JUDGE
bk/
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rathnamma, W/o late Sri. Rajappa
C. Muniraju, S/o late S. Chikka Muniyappa
Narayamma, W/o Nanjappa
Chikkolamma W/o late Sanjeevappa
H.B. Prabhakara Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
