Smt Rathnamma C v. Sri S Hanumanthegowda

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2025RFA/2917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 2917 of 2024, Karnataka HC, S.96 CPC) solely for non-compliance of office objections pending since 2024 filing; counsel's request for time refused. No merits argued, no cases cited, no quantum. Useful only as a procedural/practice-point authority on prosecuting appeals and complying with registry objections; not citable for any substantive proposition. Bench: Jyoti Mulimani J. (single judge). Respondent No.2 (Selvakumar) served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant further time to comply with office objections: nearly a year had elapsed since the 2024 filing, the objections remained uncomplied with despite earlier grant of time, and the appellants appeared not interested in prosecuting the appeal. ¶26

Smt Rathnamma C Vs Sri S Hanumanthegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5449 RFA No. 2917 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2917 OF 2024 (SP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.RATHNAMMA.C W/O SRINIVAS.N., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. SRINIVAS.N S/O S.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. NAVEEN S/O SRINIVAS.N., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE R/AT: NO.84, WARD NO.11, PARVATHAPURA, MARLUBAGILU, DEVANAHALLI, TOWN-562 110.

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA.K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

SRI. S.HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MEENUKUNTE HOSURU, DODDAJALA POST, BENGALURU RURAL-562 157.

¶16

SRI. SELVAKUMAR, S/O E.K.BENJAMIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5449 RFA No. 2917 of 2024

¶18

R/AT: H.W.HOUSE NO.2-171, GUTTAKINDURU VILLAGE, KINNATAMPALLI POST, CHITTORE POST, ANDRA PRADESH-517 422.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. ANIKETHANA.K.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARAPRASAD.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Smt.Vachana., counsel on behalf of Sri.Jagadeesha.K.G.,

¶25

for the appellants appeared in person and seeks time to comply with the office objections.

¶26

This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is plain. The appeal is listed today for non-compliance of office objections. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the objections raised at the scrutiny stage are not yet complied with. The appeal is filed in the year 2024. Now we are in the month of February, 2025. It's almost one year, the office objections are not complied with. Despite the grant of time, the office objections are not complied with. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence,

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:5449 RFA No. 2917 of 2024

¶28

¶29

the appeal is dismissed for non compliance of office

¶30

objections.

¶31

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶32

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8