Dismissed

Smt Agatha Mary v. Sri Babu

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023RFA/1493/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC. The appeal was rejected for non-compliance with court directions and office objections requiring the appellant to include all relevant defendants as formal parties in the appeal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Regular First Appeal No. 1493 of 2020 dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Smt Agatha Mary Vs Sri Babu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19884 RFA No. 1493 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2020 (PAR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT AGATHA MARY

¶7

w/o LATE DIVYANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶8

SRI XAVIER RAJ S/O LATE JOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TQ, BENGALURU-560024.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI BABU

¶14

S/O NOT KNOW TO THE APPELLANTS, AGE : MAJOR,

¶15

MOLLY JOHN

¶16

S/O NOT KNOW TO THE APPELLANTS,

¶17

AGE: MAJOR,

¶18

SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O K M PANDURANGA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19884 RFA No. 1493 of 2020

¶21

4. SRI VASANTHAN RAMADAS

¶22

S/O NOT KNOW TO THE APPELLANTS, AGE :MAJOR,

¶23

R-1 TO R-4 ARE R/O DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TQ, BENGALURU-560032.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 PASSED ON IA No.6 IN OS.No.35872014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA No.6 FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶26

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶29

appellant who is physically present.

¶30

2. Perused the office note put up by the registry which

¶31

is being reiterated and repeated by the registry since several

¶32

dates of hearing.

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:19884 RFA No. 1493 of 2020

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically present drawing the attention of the Court to the note put up by him below the cause title of the memorandum of appeal submitted that those defendants who were not made as parties in this appeal are not interested parties in this appeal because they have not filed any objections to I.A.6 filed by the respondent herein.

¶36

In that regard, the registry after considering the

¶37

said note had clearly made an observation referring to an observation made by Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.591/2008 dated 14.10.2008 the relevant portion which reads as below:

¶38

“We have gone through the note of the office and also the submissions of the counsel. Even if there is no claim whatsoever made against certain defendants who were parties to the proceeding before the trial court the appellant is required to make them formal parties (as respondents) and then he can file a memo stating he has given up the claim against them. Accordingly appellant is directed to comply with the office objections within four weeks.”

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:19884 RFA No. 1493 of 2020

¶40

¶41

The above said office note was there in the proceedings sheet and to the knowledge of the appellant since few dates of hearing. It is thereafter also appellant took time to comply the office objections including on 29.05.2023 only to comply office objections and thus he has shown that he was required to comply office objections and his contention would not hold good. In the above background as a final last opportunity a week’s time was granted to him on 29.05.2023 to comply office objections making it clear that in case if the office objections are not complied the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance.

¶42

Despite all the deliberations that had been taken

¶43

place in the matter as summarised above once again learned counsel for the appellant is re-agitating his contention that he has reasons for not arraigning those left out defendants as parties to this appeal. Bringing to his notice that the same has already been answered not in his favour and he was directed

¶44

to comply the office objection the Court gave the learned

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19884 RFA No. 1493 of 2020

¶46

counsel for the appellant two options, the first one being securing a week’s more time however at a cost of `300/- per day second one is dismissing the appeal for noncompliance of office objections. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to chose either of the option but reiterated his contention which has been met and found that he has no strength in his contention for not arraigning those defendants.

¶47

In the light of the above, since the appellant is not inclined to use the offer of granting one more week’s time with cost, appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office objections.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

BVK

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt Agatha Mary v. Sri Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Agatha Mary v. Sri Babu

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

R Rathna Vs M Mohan Kumar

N Ramaiah Vs Smt Chennamma

Sri Sanjeev J R Vs Sri Dr K Nagesh

Smt. Sarojamma a Vs Smt. Swetha N Munireddy

Sri. M. Veerappa Vs Smt. Shobha Sadashiv Kanikar

Smt M Bhavani Vs Sri C H Marilingaiah Dead by His Lrs