Dismissed

Sri. M. Veerappa v. Smt. Shobha Sadashiv Kanikar

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023RFA/446/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a regular first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Noting the appellant's counsel's failure to appear and comply with office objections despite previous opportunities, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and default.

What did the court decide?

None. Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution.

Sri. M. Veerappa Vs Smt. Shobha Sadashiv… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19875 RFA No. 446 of 2020

¶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. 446 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. M. VEERAPPA

¶7

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶8

SRI VIJAY S/O LATE M VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶9

SRI UDAYA PRAKASH S/O LATE M VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶10

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

¶11

SRI HEMANTH KUMAR S/O LATE M VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KODIGEHALLI YELAHANKA SAHARANAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 092

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. THIMMEGOWDA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. SHOBHA SADASHIV KANIKAR ALIAS MEGHA A SETTI

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:19875 RFA No. 446 of 2020

¶19

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE SADAHIV B SETTI W/O ASHOK DAMODARA SETTI FLAT NO.11, MAHALASA KOTTIGEPALYA OPP TO SRI SHANKARA SANNAIDHI VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 005

¶20

SRI ASHOK DAMODARA SETTI S/O D V SHTTI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.11, MAHALASA KOTTIGEPALYA OPP TO SRI SHANKARA SANNAIDHI VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 005

¶21

…RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.3292/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

None appear either physically nor through Video

¶25

Conference.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:19875 RFA No. 446 of 2020

¶28

2. On 06.06.2023, this Court has made the following

¶29

observations :

¶30

“Learned counsel for the appellants who initially prayed for a week’s time to comply with office objections has reduced the time for one day after hearing that granting of time would be after imposing appropriate cost. Hence, proportionately reducing the cost suggested by this Court, a day’s time is granted, subject to appellant paying cost of ` 200/- to the Legal Services Committee of this Court during the course of the day and filing a compliance memo along with receipt in the registry to that effect within the said time and compliance of office objections within a day from today.

¶31

In case office objections are not complied in toto, within the said time, registry to list this matter on 09.06.2023.”

¶32

In spite of the above, the learned counsel for the

¶33

appellants has neither complied the office objections nor shown any reasons for non-compliance of office objections and nor even appeared in this matter. The appeal is of the year 2021 and several and sufficient opportunities for not less than

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:19875 RFA No. 446 of 2020

¶35

¶36

four times have already been granted to him. As such, I do not find any further reason to grant some more time.

¶37

Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance

¶38

of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. M. Veerappa v. Smt. Shobha Sadashiv Kanikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Veerappa v. Smt. Shobha Sadashiv Kanikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

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

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

Smt. Baby Savithri Vs Sri Yogiraj