Mr Shakeel Jabbar vs Mr C Abdul Hameed
2021 Latest Caselaw 5694 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

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

              R.F.A. No.1582 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1. MR. SHAKEEL JABBAR
S/O LATE C. ABDUL JABBAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

2. MR. JAMEEL JABBAR
S/O LATE C. ABDUL JABBAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

OFFICE AT NO. 19/3,
JABBAR TRAVELS,
TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYAM,
BANGALORE 560002
                                       ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.A.SAMI, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

AND:

1 . MR. C ABDUL HAMEED
    S/O LATE C. ABDUL AZEEZ,
    AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT NO. 35,
    2nd FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
    8TH MAIN, BYRASANDRA,
    JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
    BANGALORE 560011
                                        RFA.No.1582/2014

                          2


2 . MR. C. ABDUL MAJEED
    S/O LATE C. ABDUL AZEEZ,
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
    "ROYAL APARTMENTS"
    NO.34, RANOJI RAO ROAD,
    BASAVANAGUDI,
    BANGALORE-560004

3 . MR.C. ABDUL GUFFOR
    S/O LATE C. ABDUL AZEEZ,
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT NO.3, MOSQUE ROAD,
    JTS BUILDING,
    BASAVANAGUDI,
    BANGALORE 560004

4 . MR. C. ABDUL SATTAR
    S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT NO.3, MOSQUE ROAD,
    JTS BUILDING,
    BASAVANAGUDI,
    BANGALORE 560004
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 11.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.6543/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXIV-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,   BENGALURU,   DISMISSING    THE   SUIT  FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      RFA.No.1582/2014

                                   3


                              ORDER

None appears for the appellants either physically or

through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for

non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellants. A

perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this

appeal of the year 2014, in spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunity, the appellants have not complied the

office objections nor even paid the cost imposed upon them.

2. This appeal was also dismissed on 20.04.2017 by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court for non-compliance of office

objections. Thereafter, on the application I.A.No.1/2017

being filed by the appellants, the said order of dismissal for

non-compliance was recalled on 04.02.2020. Thereafter, the

appellants did not comply the office objections, even though

sufficient opportunity was granted to them. It was

repeatedly posted for reporting compliance of office

objections, despite which, the appellants did not comply the

office objections. On 01.04.2021, as a last chance, a week's

time was granted to comply the office objections, however, RFA.No.1582/2014

subject to the appellants paying a cost of Rs.500/- to the

Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust and filing an

acknowledgement to that effect in the Registry. In spite of

the same, the appellants did not comply the office objections

nor even paid the cost. Subsequently, on 24.11.2021, once

again, learned counsel for the appellants had remained

absent, but still this Court granted him time to comply the

office objections till the closure of the office hours on

29.11.2021 by passing peremptory order on the said date.

Even then, he did not comply the office objections.

Thereafter, on 01.12.2021, the appeal came on board and on

the said date also learned counsel for the appellants

remained absent and had not complied the office objections.

The above would clearly go to show that repeatedly this

Court has been granting several and sufficient opportunities

even in the absence of the learned counsel to comply the

office objections, despite which, the appellants have neither

complied the office objections nor paid the cost and nor even

shown any reason for non-compliance.

RFA.No.1582/2014

Even after dismissal of the appeal and getting it recalled the

appellants have not complied with the office objections nor

even paid the cost. Therefore, it is a clear case of non-

prosecution and non-compliance of office objections, for

which reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.

The cost of `500/- ordered by this Court on 01.04.2021

be treated as arrears of land revenue and the beneficiary

may recover the same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mv