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

Vinod Kumar vs B Ramaiah on 2 September, 2022

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                 R.F.A. No.706/2018(PAR)

BETWEEN :

1.   VINOD KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     S/O. L. RAJU

2.   MANJUNATH
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     S/O. RAMAKRISHNA

     BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
     # 123, NEW #32, III CROSS, 13TH MAIN,
     MUNEHSWARA TEMPLE STREET, KODIHALLI,
     BENGALOORU-560 008.

                                          ...APPELLANTS


(BY SMT. JYOTHI, ADVOCATE, FOR

SRI VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . B RAMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
                             2




   S/O. LATE BODAPPA @ BODANNA,

2 . SHARADAMMA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
    S/O. LATE SRINIVASAIAH,

3 . VENKATESH
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    S/O. LATE KALAPPA @ R. PULLAPPA,

4 . R. GOVINDA @ R. GOVINDARAJ
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
    S/O. B. RAMAIAH.

5 . R. VARADARAJU @ R. VARADARAJAN
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
    S/O. B. RAMAIAH,

6 . R. GOPAL
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    S/O. B. RAMAIAH.

7 . R. KRISHNA
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
    S/O. B. RAMAIAH.

8 . K. PAPANNA
    AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
    S/O. LATE KULLAPPA.

9 . SRIDHAR
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA.
                              3




10 . BABU PRASAD
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE K. KRISHNAPPA.

11 . NIRMALA
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     D/O. LATE K. KRISHNAPPA

12 . K. PULLAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE KULLAPPA,

13 . RAMESH
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE JAYARAMA @ M. JAYARAM

14 . KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE JAYARAMA @ M. JAYARAM

15 . RAMU @ M. RAMU
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE MARAPPA.

16 . YADUKUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE M. MATTAPPA

17 . GEETHA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
     D/O. LATE M. MATTAPPA

18 . TULASI
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     D/O. LATE M. MATTAPPA
                             4




    SL. NOS. 1-18 ARE
    RESIDENTS OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
    VARTHUR HOBLI,
    BENGALOORU EAST TALUK,
    BENGALOORU DISTRICT.

19 . L. RAJU @ L. RAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
     S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH

20 . RAMAKRISHNA @ L. RAMAKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH

    SL. NOS.19 & 20 ARE
    RESIDING AT #123, MUNESHWARA
    TEMPLE STREET,
    KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 008.

21 . SOMESHEKAR @ A. SOMASHEKAR
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     S/O. APPAJI REDDY
     # 206, II MAIN, KASTURINAGAR,
     EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,
     BENGALOORU-560 016.

22 . G. SUDHAKAR RAO
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE G. BALAIAH,
     # 43/L1, SRINIKETAN, V CROSS,
     I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALOORU-560 011.

                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                              5




     THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., 1908
AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT    AND    DECREE   DATED
16.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.4616/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.


    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;


                        JUDGMENT

Learned counsel Smt. Jyothi appearing on behalf of the appellants seeks time.

2. By order dated 30.01.2020 this Court granted three weeks time to comply with the office objections failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. Despite granting sufficient time thereafter, the rectification raised by the Registry has not been complied. Even today leaned counsel seeks time. I find no cogent reason to grant further time. In view of the carelessness of not rectifying the objections raised by the Registry and also 6 there being peremptory order granted by this Court on 30.01.2020, even after a period two years we are still at the same stage. No cogent reason warrants for further extension of time. Though some of the office objections are complied, not all the objections are rectified. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE LRS.