IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.1888 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sarasamma @ Saraswathi, W/o. Late Ramadas, Aged about 60 years.
2. Sri. Venugopal, S/o. Late Ramadas Aged about 45 years 3. Smt. Shoba, D/o. Late Ramadas, Aged about 40 years.
4. Sri. Ramash, S/o. Late Ramadas, Aged about 38 years.
All are residing at Ramesh Nagar, Opposite to Murugesh Temple, Basavanapura Main Road, H.A.L. 1st Stage, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037.
(By Sri. Manjunath V., Advocate) …Appellants AND:
1. Smt. Shanthi, D/o. Late Susheela And Srinivas, Aged about 46 years, 2. Sri. Shekher, S/o. Late Susheela and Srinivas, Aged about 44 years.
3. Sri. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Susheela @ Srinivas, Aged about 41 years.
4. Smt. Gopilakshmi, D/o. Late Muniappa W/o. Sri. Puttaraju, Aged about 58 years.
5. Smt. Nagarathna, Aged about 55 years, D/o. Late Muniappa, W/o. Late Rajagopal.
All are residing at Doddathogur village, Hosur Main Road, Begur Hobli, Electronic City Post, Bangalore – 560 100.
6. Smt. Padma Aged about 61 years W/o. Late Krishna.
7. Sri. Ravi, Aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Krishna.
8. Smt. Indrani, Aged about 36 years, S/o. Late Krishna.
9. Smt. Gowramma, Aged about 61 years D/o. Late Muniappa.
10. Sri. Shivashankar, Aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Muniappa.
11. Smt. Jayanthi, Aged about 41 years, W/o. Late Nagaraja.
All the respondents No.6 to 11 are residing at Chikkathogur village, Hosur Main Road, Begur Hobli, Electronic City Post, Bangalore – 560 100.
**** …Respondents This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:03-09-2016 passed in O.S.No.2404/2010 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-6), partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition suit.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Called again in the afternoon.
Learned counsel for the appellants absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities of not less than five times, the learned counsel for appellants has not complied the office objections. As such, on 25-10-2019, this Court had passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time. Since sufficient time has already been granted in this appeal of the year 2016 and still the appellants have not complied with the office objections, granting of any further time would be only on cost.
Accordingly, as a final last chance, a week’s time is granted, however, on cost of `500/- payable by the appellants to the Legal Services Committee of this Court and filing a compliance memo along with receipt in the Registry. It is made clear that non compliance of the office objections within the said time would lead this Court to pass appropriate order including the dismissal of the appeal for non compliance as observed in the order dated 11.10.2019.
List this matter on 31.10.2019.”
3. As per the above observation, on 31-10-2019, the matter was listed with the finding by the registry that neither the office objections were complied nor the costs of `500/- imposed on 25-10-2019 was paid. However, this Court on 31-10-2019 observing that the time granted to pay the cost was not expired, directed the registry to list the matter for this date.
Accordingly, the matter is listed today.
4. The note by the registry once again goes to show that, the learned counsel for appellants has neither paid the costs nor complied the office objections. It further goes to show that in spite of granting eight opportunities, the learned counsel for appellants has not complied the office objections. As such, eleven office objections have still remained unattended to by the learned counsel for appellants.
5. In view of the above, since the learned counsel for appellants has neither appeared today nor paid the costs nor even shown any reason for non- compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellants are not interested to prosecute the matter. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non- compliance of office objections and for non- prosecution.
The costs of `500/- ordered by this Court on 25-10-2019 be treated as arrears of land revenue and registry to take steps to recover the same in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*