The regular second appeal was dismissed for default due to the persistent absence of the appellant's counsel and failure to pay the prescribed cost and comply with office objections.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2021 dismissed for non-payment of cost and non-compliance of office objections.
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 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
B ASHWIN KUMAR SON OF S.BHYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YERS, R/AT NO.42/B, 1ST MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI BYRAPPA S, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
T P PUTTASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:30483 RSA No. 1175 of 2021
1ST RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE T P PUTTASWAMY ALL ARE R/AT NO.42, 1ST MAIN ROAD YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.217/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 made an observation that the counsel for the appellant was absent and this is the matter of the year 2021 and listed for fourth time for non-compliance of office objections. However, in the ends of justice, one more opportunity was given to the counsel for the appellant to comply with the office objections on cost of Rs.1,000/- and also made it clear that if office objections are not complied and cost is not paid, the appeal will be dismissed on the next date of
NC: 2023:KHC:30483 RSA No. 1175 of 2021
hearing. Inspite of the said order, the counsel for the appellant has not paid the cost and not complied with the office objections. Today also, the counsel for the appellant is absent. Hence, in view of the order dated 11.08.2023, the appeal is dismissed for non-payment of cost and non-
compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
B Ashwin Kumar
T P Puttaswamy LRS
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
