Dismissed¶¶49

Sri Mg Shekar v. Smt Manjula

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025RFA/2380/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

karnataka high court bengaluru; RFA No. 2380 of 2023 (DEC/PAR); regular first appeal dismissed; non-compliance of office objections; Section 96 CPC 1908; Order 41 Rule 1 and 2; Jyoti Mulimani, J.; decided 21.01.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:2495; appellant M.G. Shekar (counsel B.C. Venkatesh); respondents Manjula, Vedavathi, Ambika, Usha, Bhagyalakshmi, Susheel Kumar @ Vinodh, Deepak Kumar, B.L. Nagaraju, Shanthamma, Somashekar, Lokesh, Suhasini, Bhagyamma, Devaraj, S. Manjula, Sandya Rani (Smt. Varalakshmi.P. for R1-R4); Registrar (P & H); office objections; appeal dismissed for default of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to grant further time to comply with office objections, since time had already been granted when the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and again on 10.01.2025 when two weeks' final time was given.

Sri Mg Shekar Vs Smt Manjula — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:2495 RFA No. 2380 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2380 OF 2023 (DEC/PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.G.SHEKAR S/O M.MURUGESHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO. 65, 5^TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B.C.VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE B.ANANDRAJ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO. 4, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶14

SMT A.VEDAVATHI W/O RAGHUNATHA REDDY, D/O LATE B.L.ANANDRAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO. 896, 2^ND MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, ENTRANCE, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶15

SMT A.AMBIKA W/O LINGAPRASAD, D/O LATE ANANDRAJ,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:2495 RFA No. 2380 of 2023

¶18

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.4, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶19

SMT A.USHA W/O CHANDAN RAJ @ HARSHA, D/O LATE ANANDRAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.4, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, KEMPAPURA AGARAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶20

SMT BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRINIVASA RAJULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶21

SRI SUSHEEL KUMAR @ VINODH S/O LATE SRINIVASARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶22

SRI DEEPAK KUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVASARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NEW NO.127, SRIRAMPURAM VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI B.L.NAGARAJU S/O LATE B.N.LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS, OPP: YADLAPPA SALOON SHOP, KESHAVA NAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶24

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SADANANDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:2495 RFA No. 2380 of 2023

¶27

SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE THYAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶28

SRI LOKESH S/O LATE THYAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶29

SMT SUHASINI W/O SURESH, D/O LATE THYAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶30

RESPONDENT NO NO. 3/1, GOPALAPURA, 2^ND CROSS, A-STREET, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶31

SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 4, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶32

SRI DEVARAJ

¶33

S/O LATE B N LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO. 11/17, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR THAMMAYAPPA PARK, SAMPATHKUMAR BUILDING, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶34

SMT S.MANJULA W/O N.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO. 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:2495 RFA No. 2380 of 2023

¶37

KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶38

SMT SANDYA RANI W/O SRI DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.11/17, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR THAMMAYAPPA PARK, SAMPATHUKUMAR BUILDING, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. VARALAKSHMI.P., ADVOCATE C/R1 TO 4)

¶41

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CPC, 1908.

¶42

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

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Counsel for the appellant has appeared in person and submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections.

¶45

This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is simple. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the appeal was listed before the Court on 10.01.2025, on that day, finally, two week's time was granted to comply with the office objections,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:2495 RFA No. 2380 of 2023

¶48

failing which the appeal was ordered to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' on 21.01.2025.

¶49

The appeal is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections'. Despite granting sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

¶50

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶51

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Sri Mg Shekar v. Smt Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mg Shekar v. Smt Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri. Ramachandra

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

Smt. Leela Vs Gobi Rajaraman

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy Vs Sri K Srinivasa Reddy

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs S a Rajagopal

P Sanjana Pradeep Vs M Prabhavathi