Dismissed

Smt Munirathnamma v. Sri Muniyappa @ Police Muniyappa (Retd)

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2023RFA/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The First Appellate Court dismissed the regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC for non-compliance of trivial office objections such as removing pencil markings and filing valuation slips, citing the appellants' prolonged non-appearance and failure to prosecute the case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.

Smt Munirathnamma Vs Sri Muniyappa @ Police… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19257 RFA No. 86 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022 (PAR/INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA 70 YEARS D/O SRI POLICE MUNIYAPPA

¶7

SRI S SOMESH 56 YEARS S/O LATE SRI R SHAMAPPA

¶8

SRI S MANJUNATH 46 YEARS

¶9

S/O LATE SRI R SHAMAPPA

¶10

Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. S RENUKA 48 YEARS D/O LATE SRI R SHAMAPPA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE J PNAGAR, II PHASE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI GOTTIGERE POST BENGALURU - 83

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:19257 RFA No. 86 of 2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI MUNIYAPPA @ POLICE MUNIYAPPA (RETD) DEAD

¶19

SRI VENKATESH 65 YEARS S/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH R/AT S O S POST JAMBOOSAVARI DINNE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO. 5180/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants is neither present

¶25

physically nor through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for his nonappearance.

¶26

In spite of granting several and sufficient

¶27

opportunities, the appellants have neither complied the office

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19257 RFA No. 86 of 2022

¶29

objections nor shown any reasons for his nonappearance either physically or through video conference.

¶30

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that the office objections which are yet to be complied with are too simple and trivial in nature, which includes removal of the pencil markings, filing of trial Court valuation slip and typed copy of decree in O.S. correctly stating OS number and mentioning number of delays etc., To comply these simple office objections sufficient time has been taken by the appellant since from the year 2022.

¶31

In the above circumstances, I do not find any reasons to grant further time for compliance of office objections.

¶32

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

BVK

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Smt Munirathnamma v. Sri Muniyappa @ Police Muniyappa (Retd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Munirathnamma v. Sri Muniyappa @ Police Muniyappa (Retd)

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

Sri. Sadananda Vs Shamila

N Alageshan Vs Managing Director

Mahalingaiah Vs Nijananda Murthy

M Raju Vs Smt Sarojamma

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp) Vs Sri Ramachandrachary

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Althaf Basha