The appellant failed to appear before the High Court despite multiple intimations and an order granting a final opportunity to pay costs within a week. Consequently, the regular second appeal was dismissed for not taking steps.
Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal No. 1171 of 2016 for not taking steps.
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 SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
V N RANGAIAH S/O LATE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDARIPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK. TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka
TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
NC: 2023:KHC:32756 RSA No. 1171 of 2016
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2016 PASSED IN R.A NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S NO.383/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUNIGAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal was filed in the year 2016. Notice was issued to the respondents. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, appellant has not taken steps to respondents. Matter was listed on 01.09.2023. None appeared for the appellant. Finally a week's time was granted to take steps, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority, failing which, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal. Even today, case called twice. None appeared for the appellant. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, appellant has neither taken steps nor paid the
cost. It seems that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, in view of the peremptory order, the appeal is dismissed for not taking steps.
Sd/JUDGE
RD
V N RANGAIAH S/O LATE NAGAIAH
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR
THE THASILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK
DISTRICT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, TUMKUR
ASHOK S.KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
