Shivanath Rao vs Sri Venkateshwaralu
2021 Latest Caselaw 5856 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

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

                   R.F.A.No.1997 OF 2016

BETWEEN:


1.     SHIVANATH RAO
       S/O .......
       AGE 47 YEARS,
       R/AT 91, NEAR SRINIVASA FLOOR MILL,
       2ND CROSS, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
       BANGALORE-560 015

2.     MRS.GAJALAKSHMI
       W/O VENUGOPAL, AGE 65 YEARS,
       NO.5, 7TH CROSS,
       SHETTYHALLI MAIN ROAD,
       RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
       KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
       BANGALORE-560 015.
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. B.L.KUMAR & SRI. H.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:


SRI VENKATESHWARALU
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGE 47 YEARS,
NO.100, NARAYANAREDDY BUILDING,
KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE-560 015.
                                  ...RESPONDENT
                                                         R.F.A.No.1997/2016

                                        2



     THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7962/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-14), BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
RECOVERY OF MONEY.

    THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

Learned counsel for appellants neither present physically

nor through video conference.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, in

the appeal of the year 2016, in spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities of not less than six times, the appellants

have not complied the office objections. On 20.06.2019,

even in the absence of learned counsel for appellants,

as a final opportunity, this Court had granted a week's time to

the appellants, making it clear that, if they fail to comply

the office objections, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate

orders including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

In spite of the same, the appellants have not

complied the office objections. Still, on 03.02.2020, R.F.A.No.1997/2016

three weeks' time was granted to comply the office objections,

however by passing a peremptory order. Even thereafter, the

appellants did not comply the office objections.

On 03.06.2021, this Court, noticing that despite passing of

the peremptory order, learned counsel for the appellants has not

complied the office objections, still, on its own, granted four

more weeks' time to comply the office objections. In spite of it,

the appellants have neither complied the office objections nor

appeared nor shown any reasons for their non-appearance or

non-compliance. As such, by virtue of the peremptory order and

subsequent order, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of the office objections and for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN