Sri. Basavaraj V. Mundasd vs Sri. Veerupaksha H M
2021 Latest Caselaw 5412 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                 R.F.A. No. 84 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

SRI BASAVARAJ V.MUNDASD
S/O VEERABADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O GURU APARTMENT
GAVIPURAM ROAD
MASTIVENKATESH AYANGAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 019.
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI B.B.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

SRI VEERUPAKSHA H.M
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.85/E "ANUGRAH"
SHANAKARAPPA LAYOUT
BHAVANI STREET
HEBBAGODIO, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099.
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96, CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.11.2016 PASSED BY THE 29TH CITY CIVIL &
SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S. NO.5990/2013
                                              RFA.No.84/2017

                            2


(CCH.30) BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT IN THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

None appears in the matter either physically or

through video conference.

2. A perusal of the order sheet shows that in this

appeal of the year 2017, though the matter was listed

on several dates for hearing from 10.08.2021 till date,

there is no representation by either side in the matter.

Not less than five hearing dates have been granted from

10.08.2021 till date.

3. On 18.11.2021, even though both side were not

present, still this Court granted two weeks' time showing

it as time being granted finally. However, on 25.11.2021

when the case was called, once again learned counsel

from both side remained absent. Though the appeal RFA.No.84/2017

could have been dismissed for non-prosecution, still this

Court making it clear that no further adjournment will be

granted, adjourned the matter by a week. Accordingly,

the appeal has come today.

4. When the matter is called today, again learned

counsel from both side have remained absent. This

clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the appeal.

5. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*