Karnataka High Court
Poura Seva Samithi (R) Hirihara By Its ... vs Nm Chandrashekaraiah on 6 April, 2009
TT RNEASY THOM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6™ DAY OF APRIL 2009 7 BEFORE | HwHt www Wr AARINARIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC 8. R.MAHADEVAPPA (BY: SRI C.HJachon, A) re THIS RSA. 16 FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDEF XLD CPC AGAIRST THE JUDGMENT AND DECRE® DATEL 23.4.05 FASSED IN R.A.NO.298/ 2002 (OLD NO.52/2001) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HARTHAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:31.1.2001 _. PASSED ON LA. NOX IN OS. NO.271/1990 ON THE 7 FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.), HARTHAR. Tu RBA. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS a COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal with several defects waa presented on 17.6.2005. After sorutiny of the papers, the Registry raised several office objections. As ee nt NE SE IRE AMES THE SRE UT RAKNAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO 3 the appellant did not comply with office objections, the appeal was listed before the Court for onderc cm 12.2005. On tht day, thi Court grant tw wank compliance of office objections and peremptory ovder wes passed dieting diemiassl of the appeal for non 'prosscution without fusther onéews ium the Court, if "the office objections are not complied within two wel. As office objections were not complied with during the extended period 'of tw wesle, the appeal stood dismisred. However, in the your 2008 applications were fled to teoell the order dated 5.12.2005 and also to condos delay in fling the application. After notice to 7 "the reepondenta on those applications, thie Court by 'ovdar 'deind 15.12.2008 allowed those applications , "conianed Alay in fling the application and ordered "restoration of the appeal Even after the restoration of = : tie appeal, though more than 4 months have clapsed, | _ the appellant has not complied with office objections.
SMURT UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO 4 Therefore, appeal was Usted before thie Court for further
2. Even today, a request was made on beball of learned Counsel for appellant for grant of further time. The appeal is nearly four yearu old and in epite of grant 7 of sufficient time, the appellant has not complied with office objections. Theraivve, the appellant ia not entitled fr further inlgsone ais ade of thi Court
3. In addition t this 1 is ino noticed that the appeal was fied beibre tie lower appellate court against the order ditted $1.1.2001 passed by the trial court in O.8.8o.271) 1990 'allowing IA Mo.10 filed by the
-- eppeltant, hecsin under Order 7 Rule 11(a) to (d) of CPC 'mnjecting the aqraplaint ae barred under Section 70 of the Kartiateka Co-operative Societies Act. The lower
---paticting that the appellant herein who is the first
- | dedendant in the trial court ia not « Co-operative Society
- gegistered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies ee wor RT Oe TENE NRE MIE ARINATANA FIRGPT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC 5 Act and that it is registered ae per the provisions of the court alowed the append se aie th ondar of the trial court rejecting the plaint and is remanded the eult to the trial court for dispoest on merits in sccordance with taw. Therefore, 'a regular second appeal under Section 100 of OPC is not maintainable against the judgment mind order of remand passed by the lower appeliate court. 'The said order of the lower appelicte court is appealable as per the provisioos of »Oneea ta of CPC,
4. ta ths Viw of the matter, thie appeal is not : --- manitainable, Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-3 Judge