Honnappa vs S a Murthy

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Feb 05, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1889964

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1889964
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Decided On: Feb 05, 2024
Case Number: RFA/676/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Honnappa

Respondent

S a Murthy

Excerpt

-1-in the high court of karnataka at bengalurudated this the 5th day of february, 2024 before the hon'ble mr justice h.t. narendra prasad regular first appeal no. 676 of 2023 (mon) between: honnappa s/o krishnappa aged about 60 years r/at sri lakshmi venkateshwara krupa raghavendra nagara extension sakaleshpura town …appellant (by sri. girigowda c., advocate [absent])and: s a murthy s/o s h arjun rao aged about 50 years panduranga rice mill digitally signed by hemalatha a malali road location: high raghavendra extension court of karnataka sakaleshpura nagara …respondent this rfa is filed under section 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2022 passed in os no.7/2018 on the file of the senior civil judge and jmfc, sakleshpura, dismissing the suit for recovery of money. this appeal, coming on for orders, this day, the court delivered the following: -2-judgmentinspite of granting opportunity for seven times, the office objections have not been complied with.2. even when the matter was posted before the court forcompliance of office objections on 01.02.2024, none appeared for the appellant in both the sessions and office objections have not been complied with and the matter was ordered to be listed on 02.02.2024 at the top of the list for ‘orders’. even on 02.02.2024 also, none appeared for the appellant in both the sessions and the office objections have not been complied with and the matter was ordered to be listed to today at the top of the list under the caption ‘for dismissal’.3. even today also, there is no representation on behalf ofthe appellant in both the sessions and the office objections have not been complied with. it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.4. hence, the appeal is dismissed for default and non- prosecution. sd/- judge cm

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2023 (MON) BETWEEN: HONNAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA KRUPA RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA EXTENSION SAKALESHPURA TOWN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRIGOWDA C., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND: S A MURTHY S/O S H ARJUN RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PANDURANGA RICE MILL Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A MALALI ROAD Location: High RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION Court of Karnataka SAKALESHPURA NAGARA …RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2022 PASSED IN OS No.7/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKLESHPURA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

Inspite of granting opportunity for seven times, the office objections have not been complied with.

2. Even when the matter was posted before the Court for

compliance of office objections on 01.02.2024, none appeared for the appellant in both the sessions and office objections have not been complied with and the matter was ordered to be listed on 02.02.2024 at the top of the list for ‘orders’. Even on 02.02.2024 also, none appeared for the appellant in both the sessions and the office objections have not been complied with and the matter was ordered to be listed to today at the top of the list under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

3. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of

the appellant in both the sessions and the office objections have not been complied with. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

4. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default and non- prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE CM

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Honnappa vs S a Murthy Same Judge H.T. Narendra Prasad