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 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Savithramma vs Sri Ningaiah on 26 June, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:23708
                                                            RSA No. 375 of 2018




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                          REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.375 OF 2018 (INJ)


                   BETWEEN:

                       SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
                       W/O. LATE DODDEGOWDA
                       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
                       RESIDING AT NO.409, REVENUE LAYOUT
                       BEHIND SISHUKARNI SCHOOL, HEBBAL
                       MYSURU 570 016.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                       SRI NINGAIAH
                       S/O. KEMPAIAH
                       AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
                       RESIDING AT NO.683
                       MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPAL
                       MYSURU-570 023.
Digitally signed                                                  ...RESPONDENT
by DEVIKA M            (BY SRI H.M. MANJESH, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                       ***
KARNATAKA
                         THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
                   100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
                   APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                   23.09.2011 PASSED IN R.A. NO.549 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I
                   ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF
                   THE PLAINTIFF FILED FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION HOLDING THAT
                   THE DEFENDANTS ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE
                   PROPERTY.

                         THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
                   THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:23708
                                            RSA No. 375 of 2018




                           ORDER

This Court vide order dated 17-9-2019 granted three weeks time to comply with the office objections and also made it clear that if the office objections are not complied within such period, the appeal would be dismissed. After compliance, the matter was posted on 16-10-2019 and emergent notice was issued to the respondents on interlocutory applications and on appeal. On 2-3-2023, when the matter came up for hearing on I.A. No.1 of 2018 to condone the delay of 2244 days in filing the appeal, the learned counsel sought time to produce the medical records. When the matter was posted on 10-3-2023, the learned counsel again sought for one week's time. On 17-3-2023, the learned counsel again sought time on the ground that the appellant is not responding to his instructions and in the interest of justice, granted two weeks' time and directed to list the matter on 31-3-2023.

2. On 31-3-2023, the learned counsel files a memo for retirement. Hence, this Court directed the learned counsel for the appellant to write a fresh letter to the party and to produce the acknowledgement. However, more than a year has been passed, he has not produced the acknowledgement. -3-

NC: 2024:KHC:23708 RSA No. 375 of 2018

3. Having perused the entire order-sheet and also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not responding, it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter diligently. Hence, I do not find any ground to grant time again or to adjourn the matter. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7