This is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC. The High Court had previously permitted a chance to comply with objections and pay costs, but the appellants failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed on account of non-compliance.
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.
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:28736 RSA No. 1224 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2021(DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 87.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA V., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 087.
SMT. AMMAYAMMA W/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 087. DIED HENCE DELETED
R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 087.
BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU – 560 050.
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 087.
BENGALURU – 560 071.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R-11 (ABSENT); SRI.S.M.BYRE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R-16 (ABSENT))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.290/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2011 PASSED IN OS No.397/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN). BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Court in the previous occasion i.e., on 31.07.2023 having taken note that the appeal was filed in the year 2021, the matter was listed for fourth time. However, in the ends of justice, one more opportunity was given to comply with the office objections with cost of Rs.1,000/- and it was also made clear that if office objections are not complied and if cost is not paid, the appeal would be dismissed. Inspite of it, the compliance is not done and cost is also not paid. Hence, the appeal
is dismissed for non compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
DR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow or dismiss a second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC for non-compliance with office objections.
Whether costs and compliance requirements should be enforced as a condition precedent for proceeding.
Sri. Shivaparthappa and others
Sri. B.R. Babuswamy and others
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
