Dismissed

B G Basavegowda v. Dharma Nayaka

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2023RSA/789/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed no further opportunity to file office objections after previously informing the appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Consequently, the regular second appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.

B G Basavegowda Vs Dharma Nayaka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:28735 RSA No. 789 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.789 OF 2020 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B.G.BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, HAGARE POST, MADIHALLY POST, BELUR TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SREEKANTHA K S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DHARMA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, MADIHALLY POST, BELUR TALUK.

¶15

LINGEGOWDA, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, HAGARE POST, MADIHALLY POST, BELUR TALUK.

¶16

B.G.MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, S/O JAVAREGOWDA R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, HAGARE POST, MADIHALLY POST,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:28735 RSA No. 789 of 2020

¶19

BELUR TALUK.

¶20

B.G.HALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, HAGARE POST,MADIHALLY POST, BELUR TALUK.

¶21

THOPE GOWDA, S/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT BETTALADUR VILLAGE, HAGARE POST, MADIHALLY POST, BELUR TALUK.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BELUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.182/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This Court in the previous occasion i.e., on 31.07.2023 having taken note that the appeal was filed in the year 2020, 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

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28735 RSA No. 789 of 2020

¶28

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.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

B G Basavegowda v. Dharma Nayaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B G Basavegowda v. Dharma Nayaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Krishnamurthy Vs Venkatalakshmamma

Sri. H. B. Santhosh Kumar Jain Vs Smt. K. Nirmala

Sri J Devilal Bafna Vs Sri Mariyappa K B

Sri B.S. Kendagannappa Vs Sri B.S. Devaraju

K.A Venkatesha Babu Vs Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Shivapartha Vs Sri B R Babuswamy