Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
Smt N. Manjula, D/o. Late P. N. Narayanaswamy and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ammayamma, W/o. Late P. Narayanaswamy and Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8836 of 2023 (CPC)
Decided On : 04-09-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Sri. Somasekhar Naidu B., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. T.H. Narayana, Advocate
For the Appellants :Sri. Somasekhar Naidu B., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. T.H. Narayana, Advocate
Failure to comply with procedural requisites leads to dismissal of appeals, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to court rules.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Dismissal of appeal for default - Appellants did not comply with office objections after being granted final time to do so - The absence of learned counsel on behalf of the appellants further compounded the situation leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 2 and 3)
(B) Appellate Procedure - The requirement for parties to comply with procedural requisites to ensure the continuation of their appeal in court.
Facts of the case:
The appellants are members of the family of the deceased P. Narayanaswamy, seeking to appeal against a lower court decision. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to comply with office objections despite being given a final opportunity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that non-compliance with office objections was sufficient basis for dismissal, indicating the necessity of adherence to procedural rules.
Issues: The critical issue was whether the failure to comply with office objections warranted the dismissal of the appeal without a hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that procedural non-compliance justifies dismissal of appeals, highlighting the importance of following court guidelines, especially with the absence of legal representation.
Result: Appeal dismissed for default.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. non-compliance with office objections leads to dismissal. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
Learned counsel for the appellants is absent.
2. On 25.03.2025, peremptory order was passed granting two weeks time finally for compliance of office objections.
3. As per the office note, the office objections are not complied with. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default.
