Mandeda N Rabitha vs Smt M Akhila Ganapathy on 30 November, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mandeda N Rabitha vs Smt M Akhila Ganapathy on 30 November, 2021

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.889 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.     MANDEDA.N.RABITHA,
       W/O MANDEDA N.SUKU NACHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

2.     M.N. AKASH
       S/O M.N. SUKU NACHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

3.     M.N.AKSHAY,
       S/O M.N.SUKU NACHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BILUGUNDA VILLAGE,
ARVATHOKLU POST,
VIRAJPET TALUK-571 201.
                                     ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI POONACHA.C.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. M. AKHILA GANAPATHY,
       W/O M.K. GANAPATHY,
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
       R/O: 3RD BLOCK "A"
       ADARSHA NILAYA,
                                     RFA No. 889/2018
                        2


     BAPUJI EXTENSION,
     KUSHALNAGAR-571 234.
     KODAGU DISTRICT.

2.   NERAVANDA N. SARALA,
     W/O N.K. NANNAIAH @ RAVI,
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
     R/O NEAR MATHIKAD ESTATE,
     KADLEMANE, SUNTIKOPPA-571 237,
     SOMWARPET TALUK.

3.   KUTTANDA BHAVANI,
     W/O KUTTANDA JATA CHINNAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     R/O KARMADU VILLAGE,
     KUKLOOR VILLAGE,
     AMMATHI POST-571 211.
     VIRAJPET TALUK.

4.   SMT. M.C. ROOPAVATHY,
     W/O N.B. DEVAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     KAVADI VILLAGE,
     AMMATHI HOBLI-571 211.
     VIRAJPET TALUK.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT    AND   DECREE  DATED   12.12.2017 IN
O.S.NO.43/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, VIRAJPET, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.,

     THIS     REGULAR   FIRST  APPEAL  COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                            RFA No. 889/2018
                                          3


                                    ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellants appearing through video conference once again prays for two weeks accommodation.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that several and sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the appellants to comply the office objections. On 05.04.2021, the following observation was made by this Court:

"Though the matter is listed for non-compliance of office objections for 3rd time, learned counsel for appellant seeks some more time to do the needful.

As a last chance, further time of two weeks' is granted to comply with office objections subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to 'Karnataka Advocates Clerk's Benevolent Trust' within two weeks and acknowledgement to that effect be filed in the registry".

RFA No. 889/2018

4 In spite of the above, the appellants have neither paid the cost nor filed an acknowledgement in the registry and not even complied the office objections. As such, I do not find any ground to grant some more time to the appellants to comply the office objections.

4. In view of the above, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

However, the beneficiary of the cost i.e., the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru is at liberty to enforce the said order as a civil decree for its execution in the manner known to law before the competent Court.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE mbb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court