Dismissed¶33

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy v. Sri K Srinivasa Reddy

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025RFA/928/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of first appeal for default; Karnataka High Court; RFA No. 928 of 2023 (PAR); dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections; appellant absent and unrepresented despite prior opportunities and a final week's time; Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 CPC, 1908; Justice Jyoti Mulimani; decided 21 January 2025; oral order; no adjudication on merits; no costs or quantum recorded.

What did the court decide?

The Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections: despite sufficient time, the office objections were not complied with, and the appellant was not represented when the case was called, indicating the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. ¶33

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy Vs Sri K Srinivasa Reddy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2458 RFA No. 928 of 2023

¶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. 928 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.THIRUPATHI REDDY S/O LATE K.VENKASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.K304, STANBERRY COURT APARTMENTS, RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. MELANIE SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI K.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI K SHIVARAMA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶15

NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT: R/A NO.26 (OLD NO.50), GANGANAGARA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶16

SRI K VENKATARAMANA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶17

SMT K.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASUBBA REDDY,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:2458 RFA No. 928 of 2023

¶20

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,

¶21

RESPODENT NO.S 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT: OLD KHB COLONY, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BHARGAV.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO 4)

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

When the case is called, the appellant is not represented.

¶28

When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶29

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and also before the Court and time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 07.01.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. However, in the interest of justice, finally, a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the appeal was ordered to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:2458 RFA No. 928 of 2023

¶32

of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' and also for appearance of counsel for the appellant on 21.01.2025.

¶33

The appeal is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' and also for appearance of counsel for the appellant. Despite granting sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is not represented. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also non-compliance of office objections.

¶34

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶35

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy v. Sri K Srinivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Thirupathi Reddy v. Sri K Srinivasa Reddy

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. Manjula Vs Sri. Ramachandra

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

Smt. Leela Vs Gobi Rajaraman

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs S a Rajagopal

Sri Mg Shekar Vs Smt Manjula

P Sanjana Pradeep Vs M Prabhavathi