Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jairaj vs Sri. Venkatesh on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.1193 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAIRAJ
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O GANGAMMA
NO.85, VINOBANAGAR
KADUGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 045. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
2 . SMT. M.SHANTHI
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
3 . SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
2
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
4 . SMT. N.NIRMALA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
5 . SRI.R.RAMU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
RESIDING AT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
6 . SRI JOLLY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
7 . SRI JAGADEESH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
8 . SMT. RANI
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
3
9 . SMT. KALAISELVI
D/O AMUDHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN,
II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
10 . MR.FAYAZ PASHA
S/O LATE OMAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO.23, ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD,
BILALNAGAR CIVIL STATION,
BENGALURU-560 045.
11 . MR.EJAZ PASHA
S/O LATE OMAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO.23, ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD,
BILALNAGAR CIVIL STATION,
BENGALURU-560 045. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S
NO.8164/2013 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED
UNDER SECTION 11 OF CPC FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUIT IS DISMISSED.
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 the appellant not present.
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
The office has raised objection stating that, the impugned
order does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that,
none of the impugned papers bear the signature of the Presiding
Officer, who has passed the impugned Judgment.
Since five years, the matter is pending for compliance of
the said objection and for rectifying the same, the appellant has
not taken effective steps.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, on the
previous date, this court has made observation that, though the
matter has been repeatedly coming the appellants have not
complied the office objection. As such, for non-compliance of the
office objection and for non-prosecution, the appeal stands
dismissed.
However, the Registrar General to seek explanation of the
concerned judicial officer who is shown to have delivered the
impugned Judgment calling for reasons as to why he has not
subscribed his signature on any page of the Judgment including
the operative portion of the Judgment.
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
Registrar General also to seek submission from the
Principal District Judge and City Civil and Sessions Judge for
issuance of such kind of certified copies to the clients or
Advocates without ascertaining that the Judgment is duly signed
by the pronouncing judicial officer.
Explanation to be secured and processed within three
weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
