Appeal against dismissal of partition suit. Appeal dismissed as counsel's retirement memo complied with no supporting documents following multiple adjournments, constituting non-compliance of court objections.
The appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections due to lack of supporting documents for the counsel's retirement.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA S AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O NO.140, I K BLOCK, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
Digitally signed by BHARATHIDEVI K KORLAHALLI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:19659 RFA No. 979 of 2020
GAYATHRINAGAR BANGLAORE - 560 010.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI VENKATESH PRALHAD KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:19659 RFA No. 979 of 2020
S/O BYRAPPA @ ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL DAKHLE VISHWANEEDAMPOST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 091.
NC: 2023:KHC:19659 RFA No. 979 of 2020
R/O NO. 120, OLD NO. 106 I A BLOCK, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJIANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P.,ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R-1 AND R-2)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED IN OS.No.9792/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY , DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
NC: 2023:KHC:19659 RFA No. 979 of 2020
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants is physically
present in the Court. Perused his memo for retirement. Heard his submission.
It is stated in the retirement memo that he had given
No Objection Vakalath to the appellants and that he has no intention to appear for the appellants and hence sought for his retirement.
to show that there are seven appellants in the matter for whom the present counsel is appearing for. Except a bare memo, there are no documents accompanying the memo like copy of retirement notice or the acknowledgement having permitted the learned counsel to retire from appearing for the appellants. In that view of the matter, the memo of retirement stands rejected.
In view of the appellants not complying the office objections in spite of granting several and sufficient
NC: 2023:KHC:19659 RFA No. 979 of 2020
opportunities of not less than three times and in view of the observationsmade on 26.05.2023, which is to be read as part of today’s order, the Appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite the counsel's claimed retirement without supporting documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N RAMAIAH and others
SMT CHENNAMMA and others
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
