The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC for non-compliance with office objections, specifically failure to pay deficit court fees despite prior opportunities.
The appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered.
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.
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1897 OF 2019 (POS)
BETWEEN:
Sri Mohan Mandala Aged About 41 Years S/O Poovappa Door No 5-113, Padushedde Village Post Bondel- 575008 Mangaluru, D. K. District
…Appellant
(By Sri. Sangamesh for Sri. Chandranath Ariga K., Advocate)
And:
Digitally signed by BANGALORE MADHAVACHAR VEENA Location: High Court of Karnataka
Sri Uggappa Shetty Aged about 78 years, S/O. Late. K. Narayana Shetty, ”Aachemane” House, Marakada Village, Post: Kumjathbail - 575 015, Mangaluru, D.K. District.
…Respondent
(By Sri. Sachin B S.,Advocate)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records in O.S.No.86/2015 on the file of the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
and JMFC at Mangaluru; set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mangaluru, in O.S.No.86/2015; dismiss the suit in O.S.No.86/2015 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mangaluru; and allow this appeal and grant such other reliefs as this Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the appellant, who is physically present in the Court, submits that despite his best efforts and communication with the appellant, the appellant is not properly assisting him in complying the office objections, including the payment of deficit Court fee. With this, he pleads his helplessness to comply the office objections.
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
specific reference to the office objections, from the date of raising of office objections, till the expiry of further time that was granted on the said day. Despite the same, neither the learned counsel for the appellant has filed the affidavit nor the appellant is evincing any interest in complying the office objections, in which regard, learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded his helplessness in the matter. As such, I do not find any reason to grant further time in this appeal of the year 2019.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed
non-compliance of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.
That the cost of a sum of `500/- ordered on the date 22-05-2023 since has not been paid, the beneficiary of the said cost which is the Legal Services Committee of this Court is entitled to recover the said amount by treating the order dated 22-05-2023 and today’s order as a decree and as arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law.
RFA No. 1897 of 2019
Registry to transmit a copy of the order dated 22-05-2023 as well as today’s order to the said beneficiary, i.e. the Legal Services Committee of this Court, for their needful.
Sd/JUDGE
BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite the appellant's non-compliance with court objections including payment of court fees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Mohan Mandala
Sri Uggappa Shetty
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
