Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC. Appellant's counsel was absent despite a prior warning regarding dismissal. The court dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections due to absence of counsel.
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 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2531 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT KUTHANUR VILALGE KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TLAUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT 571111.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GYANANANDA B, ADVOCATE [Absent])
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND :
RSA No. 2531 of 2017
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KUTHANUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK 571111 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
RESPONDENT NO.5, 6 & 8 ARE R/AT KUTHANUR VILALGE 571111 KASABA HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
RSA No. 2531 of 2017
10. NAGAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAGOPAMMA AGED ABOUT 327 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.9 & 8 ARE R/AT KUTHANUR VILALGE 571111 KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISRICT 571126
12. SANNAMADAMMA
D/O LATE CHANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KOAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK-571111 CHAMARAJANGARA DISTRICT
13. CHANDRAMMA
RESPONDENT No.13 & 14 ARE R/AT KUTHANUR VILLAGE 571111 KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
RSA No. 2531 of 2017
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.126/20147 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Court, vide order dated 13.03.2023, made it clear that if the counsel for the appellants fails to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing, the appeal will be dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Inspite of the said order, today also the counsel for the appellants is absent. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
Mandashetty S/o Chikkagopamma
C. Madashetty S/o Chikkagopamma
Channabasamma D/o Doddabasavashetty
Madashetty S/o Late Doddabasavashetty
Puttasiddamma S/o Late Doddabasavashetty
Basamma D/o Late Siddabasavashetty
H.P. Sundersanesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
