Miss. Rejina Rebello v. Francis Kutinha
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal dismissed as appellant was absent, non-compliant with office objections, and failed to pay deficit court fee.
Appeal dismissed as appellant was absent, non-compliant with office objections, and failed to pay deficit court fee.
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 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1848 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
MISS. REJINA REBELLO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, D/O LATE GREGORY REBELLO, R/AT H.NO.2-43, PERNAL POST, PILAR VILLAGE, VIA SHIRVA UDUPI TQ & DIST. – 576 101.
…APPELLANT
[BY MISS. REJINA REBELLO, APPELLANT (ABSENT)]
AND:
Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE AGASTIN KUTINHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT PERNAL POST PILAR VILLAGE, VIA SHIRVA UDUPI TQ & DIST – 576 101
ELIZABETH LUCY NAZARETH (SINCE DECEASED)
JOHN ANTHONY MOHAN NAZARETH (SINCE DECEASED)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.P.E. REGO AND ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.9.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2011 & 36/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE RA NO.33/2011 AND DISMISSING THE RA NO.36/2011 AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.6.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.12/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed on 16.12.2014 through the counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant was elevated as judge of this Court. Thereafter Court notice was issued to the appellant. Inspite of service of Court notice, the appellant has remained absent and not paid the deficit Court fee. It seems that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
SKS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Miss. Rejina Rebello
Francis Kutinha
Francis Ignatius D'Souza
Pascal Alan Nazareth
Philomena Nazareth
Rahul
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court