Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32505 (KAR)

SMT. GAYATHRI v. SMT. KOMALA PRASANNA

RFA/1891/2023 · 2025-01-31

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4579 RFA No. 1891 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1891 OF 2023 (EJE) BETWEEN: SMT. GAYATHRI W/O S.PRABHAKAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT NO 301, POOJA APARTMENT, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 095. AND ALSO AT: M/S.GAYATHRI STATIONARY, SHOP NO 4/1, GROUND FLOOR, M/S RAJKAMAL HOTEL, NO.8/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJU.P., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KOMALA PRASANNA W/O LATE N.PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RAJKAMAL ENTERPRISES, NO /2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4579 RFA No. 1891 of 2023 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Counsel for the appellant has appeared in person and submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply with the office objections. This Court is not inclined to granted time. The reason is plain. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again the appeal was listed before the Court and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Once again the appeal was listed on 09.01.2025, on that day, finally a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’ on 31.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4579 RFA No. 1891 of 2023 granting sufficient time, the appellant has not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory order dated 09.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7