Regular Second Appeal filed under CPC Section 100 was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka for non-prosecution and failure to comply with office objections despite multiple opportunities and a pendency of nearly four years.
Dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal for non-prosecution 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:43619 RSA No. 376 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3, RESIDING AT PUTHYA PERAJE VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
…APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR.S.K., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:43619 RSA No. 376 of 2020
AGED 68 YEARS, SON OF LATE MARIAPPA, RESIDING AT PUTHYA PERAJE VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal
was listed on 22.10.2021, on that day, two weeks time was granted for compliance of office objections. Thereafter, it was listed on several dates and sufficient time was granted to
NC: 2024:KHC:43619 RSA No. 376 of 2020
comply the office objections. Again, it was listed on 24.06.2024, on that day, a week's time was granted to do the needful. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with.
The appeal is listed today for orders regarding noncompliance of office objections for the fifth time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the appeal is filed in the year 2020. Now we are in the month of October 2024. The appeal is pending for almost four years. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellants are not represented. It appears that the appellants are not diligent in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a regular second appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections after repeated adjournments and a pendency of almost four years.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.M.Seetharama
Smt. B.S.Vimala
Miss. B.S.Hasthalaxmi
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited
The Executive Engineer, Chamundeshwari Electrical Supply Company
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Chamundeshwari Electrical Supply Company
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
