Dismissed¶33

Smt. Saraswathamma v. Smt. Channamma

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – Oral Judgment dated 03.06.2025

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025RFA/1906/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka; Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:18633; RFA No. 1906 of 2017 (PAR); Regular First Appeal; Justice Jyoti Mulimani; oral judgment; 03.06.2025; dismissed for non-prosecution; appellant unrepresented; counsel absent; Narayan.M.; Pavan Kumar.G.; M.D.Krishnappa; Saraswathamma; Channamma; R.Lakshmamma; Gowramma; R.Chandra; Domlur; Frazer Town; Section 96 CPC; Order 41 Rule 1 CPC 1908; appeal pending eight years.

What did the court decide?

As the appellant was not represented on successive listings (02.06.2025 and 03.06.2025), the appeal having remained pending for eight years, it appeared the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal; accordingly the Regular First Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶33

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs Smt. Channamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18633 RFA No. 1906 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1906 OF 2017 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.779, VENKATASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, DOMLUR HUTTING COLONY, 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYAN.M., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. R.LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SL.NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT PROPERTY NO.55/2, 4^TH CROSS, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071.

¶16

SRI. R.CHANDRA S/O LATE RAMAIAH,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:18633 RFA No. 1906 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/AT NO.14, MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.D.KRISHNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4)

¶23

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908.

¶24

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶27

Sri.Pavan Kumar.G., counsel on behalf of

¶28

Sri.M.D.Krishnappa., for respondents 1 to 4 has appeared in person.

¶29

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 02.06.2025. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the appellant, the appeal was ordered to be listed on 03.06.2025.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:18633 RFA No. 1906 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The appeal is listed today. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is not represented. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in the year 2017. Now we are in the month of June 2025. The appeal is pending from eight years. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶34

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶35

TKN

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Smt. Saraswathamma v. Smt. Channamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswathamma v. Smt. Channamma

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

Sri Sharath Kumar G Shetty Vs the Secretary

S Badrinath Vs M/S Rajashekhar Associates

Sri. K B Mahesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri K N Madhusudan Vs Smt. Parvthamma

H Lokeshappa Vs Smt.Ratnamma

Sri. Venkatesh Vs Sri. Vimal Kishore