IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2747 OF 2011 (Dec- Inj) Between:
Smt. Seethamma, Age: Major, W/o Veerappa Gowda, Agriculturist, R/at Kodihalli Village, Anavatti Hobli, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. ... Appellant (By Sri.H.Dayananda Saraswathi, Advocate) And:
Mallappa @ Mallanna Joger, S/o Basappa, Since dead by his LR’s., 1. Sri. Somappa, Age: 57 years, S/o late Mallappa, 2. Sri.Basavanthappa, Age: 54 years, S/o late Mallappa, Both are residing at Haya Village, Kuppagadde Hobli, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. ...Respondents (By Sri. S.P.Kulkarni, Advocate for R1 and R2) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated:5.10.2010 passed in R.A.No.319/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Soraba, partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2006 passed in O.S. No.35/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Sorab.
This RSA coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T In this matter an order was passed on 12.2.2015 permitting the learned counsel for the appellant to file better affidavit to explain the delay in filing this appeal.
2. The defendant in the original suit has filed this second appeal with delay of 317 days. Objections are filed to the application by the contesting respondents on 12.2.2015. On that day, at the request of the appellant this Court granted two weeks time to file better affidavit to explain the delay in proper manner and same was subject to condition of payment of Rs.500/- towards cost. It is seen that neither the cost was paid nor better affidavit was filed within two weeks. However, this matter was listed for non-compliance of the same on 26.11.2015, on which day, without passing any orders on that, this Court adjourned the matter to be listed in the month of February 2016. However, it is listed only on 12.4.2016, on which day, further time was granted for compliance of order dated 12.2.2015. Again this matter is listed on 6.1.2017. Even as on that day, the order dated 12.2.2015 was not complied. Hence, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, another two weeks time was granted for compliance. Thereafter, this matter is listed today.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant is again seeking further time for compliance of the order dated 12.2.2015. Admittedly, initial time of two weeks granted to the appellant has expired three years ten months prior to this day. In spite of said long lapse of time, learned counsel for the appellant has not complied with the order of this Court and still insisting for further time to be granted. If that is to be permitted, it is nothing but allowing the judicial proceeding to be treated as joke. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to show indulgence in granting further time without any rhyme or reason.
Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of order dated 12.2.2015.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp