Sri. Syed Ayub vs Sri. A. Prasad
2021 Latest Caselaw 6298 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

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

               R.F.A.No.2209 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI.SYED AYUB
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
       S/O LATE SYED HAKEEM
       NO.52, III CROSS,
       PEMMEGOWDA ROAD,
       JC NAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560 006

2.     SRI.MOHAMMED ASHFAQ
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
       S/O MOHAMMED ISACQ
       RESIDING AT NO.18,
       OLD POLICE LANE,
       ARMSTRONG ROAD,
       BHARATHINAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 063

3.     SRI.SYED AFROZ ISSACQ
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       S/O LATE SYED ISSACQ
       RESIDING AT NO.60
       MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD,
       J.C.ROAD, J.C.NAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 006
                                             RFA No.2209/2019
                               2


4.     SRI.M.S.DEEPAK
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
       SON OF SHASHIKANTH
       R/AT NO.42, VENUGOPAL LAYOUT,
       ANANDNAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 024.                    ..APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.KAMALUDDIN AHMAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

       SRI.A.PRASAD
       SON OF SRI.ANJANAPPA
       AGED 48 YEARS,
       RESIDING OF NO.389,
       I FLOOR, 13TH MAIN,
       SADASHIVNAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 080                    ..RESPONDENT

       THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE        DATED         14.08.2019       PASSED        IN
O.S.NO.4213/2009,      ON    THE     FILE   OF   THE     XXIV
ADDITIONAL      CITY   CIVIL       AND   SESSIONS      JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH NO.6), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.


       This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:
                                            RFA No.2209/2019
                              3


                         ORDER

None appear in this matter either physically or

through video conference.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a

Memo dated 02.12.2021 seeking retirement in the matter

stating that he has given no objection (NOC) to the

appellants.

3. Mere stating that he has given no objection

(NOC) to the appellants would not entitle a counsel to seek

retirement from the matter, unless the receipt of the said

no objection (NOC) is acknowledged by the appellants who

have executed vakalath in his favour. Admittedly, neither

any notice is given by the learned counsel for the

appellants to his client regarding his retirement, nor any

acknowledgement for having given NOC Vakalath to the

appellants have been filed along with the documents.

Hence, the memo of retirement is not acceptable and as

such, it is rejected.

RFA No.2209/2019

3. In view of the fact that in spite of granting

several and sufficient opportunities of not less than four

times, since the appellants have not complied the office

objections, the Appeal stands dismissed for

non-compliance of office objections as well as for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBB