Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Sidila Pinto vs Andrew Pinto (Since Dead) on 22 January, 2026

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC:3973
                                                         RSA No. 1548 of 2022


                  HC-KAR


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                              BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2022 (PAR)

                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    MRS SIDILA PINTO
                       AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

                 2.    REETA LOBO
                       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

                 3.    ANJELINA PINTO
                       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

                 4.    PAUL J PINTO
                       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

                 5.    THERESA M PINTO
                       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

Digitally signed 6.    EDWIN PINTO
by ANUSHA V            AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of         7.    LEO STANELY PINTO
Karnataka              AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

                 8.    ALWIN PINTO
                       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

                       NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND 2 TO 8 ARE
                       CHILDREN OF LATE MARIAN PINTO
                       R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE
                       VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE
                       BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                 (BY SRI. AKHIL S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
                               -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:3973
                                    RSA No. 1548 of 2022


 HC-KAR

AND:

1.    ANDREW PINTO (SINCE DEAD)
      W/O LATE ROSARIO PINTO
      R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE VITTAL
      KASABA VILLAGE
      BANTWAL TALUK D K

1A.   MRS LILLY PAIS
      W/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
      R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE VITTAL
      KASABA VILLAGE
      BANTWAL TALUK D K

1B.   PRECILLA PINTO
      D/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
      W/O VINCENT PINTO
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
      R/AT KELLERIMAR
      SARAPADY VILLAGE
      BANTWAL TALUK D K

1C.   JACINTHA PINTO
      D/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
      AGED AOUT 44 YEARS,
      R/AT A C CONVENT 94
      HILL ROAD BANDRA MUMBAI

1D. ANITHA LUCY PINTO
    D/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
    W/O PRAVEEN STEPHEN PINTO
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    R/AT LOBO COMPOUND
    THARASI KUNDAPUR TALUK
    UDUPI DISTRICT


1E.   SUNITHA JANE PINTO
      D/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
      W/O KAVIN NOEL PEREIRA
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
      R/AT NEAR AGRAR CHURCH
      BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE
      BANTWAL TALUK D K
                                          -3-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC:3973
                                                      RSA No. 1548 of 2022


 HC-KAR

1F.   FRANCIS PREETHAM PINTO
      S/O LATE ANDREW PINTO
      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
      R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE VITTAL
      KASABA VILLAGE
      BANTWAL TALUK D K
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1A TO C)

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN
RA.NO.4/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BANTWAL D.K, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.223/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANTWAL.D.K., AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52