Sri N Venkatesh vs Munichinnamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5778 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

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

                 R.F.A. No. 676 OF 2021
BETWEEN:

SRI N VENKATESH
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.1597
NEAR GLASS FACTORY
B B NAGAR, SAHAKARNAGAR POST
KODIGEHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 092
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. SAVITHA T.H, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MUNICHINNAMMA
       W/O RAMARAJAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

2.     SRI RAMARAJAPPA
       S/O CHIKKANANJAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
       SAHAKARANAGAR POST
       BENGALURU-560 092.
                                 RFA.No.676 /2021

                            2


3.   SMT AKKAYAMMA
     W/O LATE NANJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.


4.   SRI SHAILAJA
     D/O LATE NANJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

5.   SRI SRINIVASA
     S/O LATE MUNIHUCHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

     DEFENDANT NOS.3 TO 5
     ARE RESIDING AT
     KRISHNAPPA BUILDING
     GANGA BHAVANI ROAD
     KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
     SAHAKARANAGAR POST
      BENGALURU-560 092.

6.   SMT MUNIVENKATAMMA
     W/O LATE MUNIARASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

7.   SMT SOUBHAGYA
     D/O MUNIARASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

8.   SRI PRAKASH
     S/O LATE MUNIARASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

9.   SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
     S/O LATE MUNIARASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
                                                 RFA.No.676 /2021

                              3




10 . KUM. PARVATHI
    D/O LATE MUNIARASAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

    DEFENDANT NOS.6 TO 10 ARE
    R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
    NEXT TO KODIGEHALLI PANCHAYATH OFFICE
    SAHAKARANAGAR POST
    BENGALURU - 560 092.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS   REGULAR      FIRST    APPEAL   IS   FILED   UNDER

SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 OF CPC. PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-27)

DATED 01.06.2021 IN DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE

APPELLANT   IN    O.S.   NO.4184/12   FILED     AGAINST    THE

RESPONDENT       HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREE THE

SAME AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC.



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING

HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   RFA.No.676 /2021

                               4


                          JUDGMENT

None appear for the appellant either personally or

through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming

for his non-appearance.

2. A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that

in spite of granting sufficient opportunities, the appellant

has not taken steps to ensure service of notice to the

respondents. However, even in the absence of the

learned counsel for the appellant, on 26.11.2021, this

Court, as a final opportunity, has granted a week's time

for the appellant to pay the process for service of notice

upon the respondents. In spite of the same, since the

appellant has neither taken steps and not even

appeared in the matter, nor even shown any reason for

his non-appearance and for not taking steps, it has to be

inferred that the appellant is not interested in RFA.No.676 /2021

prosecuting the appeal and to take steps for service of

notice upon the respondents.

3. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for not

taking steps as well as for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE vgh*