Dismissed¶26

Smt. Yashodamma. H. N. v. Sri. Lingaraju. M. B.

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2025RFA/1281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; RFA No. 1281 of 2023 (MON); dismissal of first appeal for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections; Section 96 CPC; peremptory order dated 07.01.2025; counsel absent; Justice Jyoti Mulimani; decided 17.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

In view of the peremptory order dated 07.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections, the appellants having failed to comply despite sufficient time. ¶26

Smt. Yashodamma. H. N. Vs Sri. Lingaraju. M. B. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1991 RFA No. 1281 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2023 (MON)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. YASHODAMMA.H.N. W/O GUDDE GOWDA H.D., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶8

KUM. MAMATHA D/O GUDDE GOWDA H.D,. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶9

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

GUDDE GOWDA H.D. S/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NO.44, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, LAKSHMAN NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶11

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. LINGARAJU.M.B. S/O LATE BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.48, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, GAJAANA NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:1991 RFA No. 1281 of 2023

¶16

BENGALURU-91. MOB NO.9900305996.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908.

¶19

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. His absence may affect the case.

¶22

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 07.01.2025, on that day, finally a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’ on 17.01.2025.

¶23

The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellants have not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:1991 RFA No. 1281 of 2023

¶26

order dated 07.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.

¶27

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶28

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Yashodamma. H. N. v. Sri. Lingaraju. M. B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yashodamma. H. N. v. Sri. Lingaraju. M. B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Leela Vs Gobi Rajaraman

Sri Syed Pyarejan Vs Zaiherunnisa

Smt. K.P. Veena, Vs Sri P S Ashwathnarayan

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri. Ramachandra

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy Vs Sri K Srinivasa Reddy

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs S a Rajagopal