The court dismissed an appeal filed via Regular Second Appeal against a succession and inheritance decree. The appeal was dismissed summarily because the appellant's counsel failed to pay costs and comply with office objections despite prior orders granting time.
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of cost.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:27182 RSA No. 1152 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:27182 RSA No. 1152 of 2018
SON OF LATE SRI LINGA REDDY
@ SRI MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 107.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3, R5 AND R6; SRI MURTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.201 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.169/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant’s counsel is absent and this Court vide order dated 20.4.2023 on the request of the appellant’s counsel
two weeks time is granted to comply with office objections when the matter was listed for 5th time for non-compliance and on payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. The counsel has not paid the cost and not complied with office objections. The order is very clear that, if office objections are not complied within two weeks, list the matter for dismissal immediately after summer vacation 2023.
Even in spite of 3½ months have been elapsed, though two weeks time was granted, cost not paid and office objections have not complied.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of
office objections and non-payment of cost.
Sd/JUDGE
AP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.
Sri Manjunatha Reddy
Smt. Muniyamma
Sri N. Prakash
Sri N. Ramesh
Smt. Saroja
Sri N. Manjunath
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
