Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2023 DAILYLAW 1528 (KAR)

SMT. GEETHA BAI W/O. LATE GIRISH NAIK v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

MFA/101437/2021 · 2026-08-01

Geetha K B

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101437 OF 2021 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHA BHAI W/O LATE GIRISH NAIK, AGED: 30 YEARS, R/O: BHEETHYA THANDA, TAL: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI- 583219. 2. KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE GIRISH NAIK, AGED: 6 YEARS, R/O: BHEETHYA THANDA, TAL: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI- 583219. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GEETHA BHAI W/O LATE GIRISH NAIK. 3. SRI. AMBRA NAIK S/O LATE BHEEMA NAIK, AGE: 69 YEARS, R/O: BHEETHYA THANDA, TAL: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI- 583219. 4. SMT. MAKKAVVA @ BUDDI W/O AMBRA NAIK, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: BHEETHYA THANDA, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI- 583219. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI- 583102. 2 2. SRI. R. HEMA REDDY S/O REDDY KOTRAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: SECTION OFFICER, GESCOM HAMPASAGAR, TAL: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI- 583212. 3. SRI. N. MAHESH S/O MALLAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, R/O: LINEMAN GESCOM, HAMPASAGAR, TAL: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI- 583212. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRICAL) GESCOM, HAMPASAGAR, TAL: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI- 583212. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENIGNEER, (ELECTRICAL) GESCOM, HAMPASAGAR, TAL: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI- 583212. …RESPONDENTS * * * * * This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed Under Order 33 Rule(1) R/w section 151 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 passed in MISC. No.11/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, H.B.Halli, Itinerary sitting at Senior Civil Judge, Huvinahadagali. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following; O R D E R Four weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections. Failing to do so, the appeal stands dismissed without reference to the Court. SD/- JUDGE. 3 //COPY// As per the endorsement made in the Order Sheet dated 10.01.2024, the Advocate for the appellants has not complied with the office objections. Hence, this MFA No.101437/2021 stands dismissed as per the Court Order dated 18.11.2023. BY ORDER OF THE COURT Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR T- By: gtb C- By: raj