Smt Gauher Muneer vs Shri Ashraf Khan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6383 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

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

                R.F.A.No.547 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. GAUHER MUNEER,
W/O SRI MIR MUNEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANA & SUMI'S
AASHIYANA,
NO. 926, 22ND MAIN,
38TH CROSS,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041.
                                     ..APPELLANT

(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SHRI ASHRAF KHAN,
       FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
       THE PLAINTIFF,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
       NO. 153, DODDABYLE KHANA,
       MARATHA RANOJI RAO LANE,
       KALASIPALYA,
       BENGALURU-560 002.
                                           RFA No. 547/2017
                            2


2.   SHRI NAEER KHAN,
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     TO THE PLAINTIFF,
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     RESIDING AT NO. 153,
     DODDABYLE KHANA,
     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NO.27/17,
     MARATHA RANOJI RAO LANE,
     KALASIPALYA,
     BENGALURU-560 002.
                                  ..RESPONDENTS

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2016
PASSED IN O.S.NO.4080/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH NO.25), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.

     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 is neither present

physically in the Court nor through video conference. No

reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show

that in this appeal of the year 2017, in spite of granting

several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not RFA No. 547/2017

complied the office objections, though sufficient

opportunities of not less than seven times is granted.

3. On 13.12.2021, the matter was called in two

rounds, still the learned counsel for the appellant was

remained absent. On the said date, making it clear that in

case the office objections are not complied with before

15.12.2021, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate

order, as a final last chance, a short accommodation was

granted. Despite the same, the appellant has not evinced

any interest in complying the office objections nor shown

any reasons for non-compliance.

As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections as well for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBB