M/S Sri Maharudra Rice Industries vs M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6887 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

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

    REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1588 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

  1. M/S. SRI MAHARUDRA RICE INDUSTRIES,
     A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
     MALEBENNUR, DIBBADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

 a) N.K.JAYALINGAPPA,
    S/O BASAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 101 YEARS,
    BUSINESS PARTNER.

 b) K YAGANAVALKAPPA,
    S/O JAYALINGAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
    BUSINESS PARTNER.

 c) N.K.BASAVARAJAPPA,
    S/O JAYALINGAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    BUSINESS PARTNER.

 d) B NAGENDRAPPA,
    S/O B PUTTAPPA,
                                    RFA No. 1588/2019
                         2


       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
       BUSINESS PARTNER.                 ..APPELLANTS

(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

  1. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA RICE MILL,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     SRI T SHRINIVASASHETTY,
     S/O T VISHWANATH,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     BUSINESS, R/O SANKALPUR VILLAGE,
     BELLARY ROAD, HOSPET,
     BELLARY DISTRICT.

  2. SRI SAGAR TEKKALAKOTE,
     S/O TEKKALAKOTE SRINIVASSHETTY,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
     R/O SANKLAPUR VILLAGE,
     BELLARY ROAD, HOSPET,
     BELLARY DISTRICT.            ..RESPONDENTS


      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 41 RULE 1 AND
2 R/W SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND    DECREE     DATED    16.03.2019  PASSED    IN
O.S.NO.1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.

     THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                               RFA No. 1588/2019
                                 3



                          ORDER

None appeared for the appellants either physically or

through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for

non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants

as well as for non-compliance of office objections.

2. A perusal of the cause list would go to show

that in spite of granting seven opportunities, the appellants

have not complied the office objections.

3. This Court, by its order dated 09.04.2021,

while granting three more weeks time to the appellants to

comply the office objections had directed him to file an

affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance with

specific reference to the office objections from the date of

raising of office objections till the expiry of further time

granted by that order, till date the appellants have not

filed such an affidavit explaining the reasons for

non-compliance of office objections.

RFA No. 1588/2019

4. On 30.11.2021, at the request of learned

counsel for the appellant, this Court, as a last chance,

granted a week's time to comply the office objections

including filing of affidavit as per order dated 09.04.2021.

However, the same was not complied with. Once again,

the matter came up on 08.12.2021, when this Court made

the following order:

"Learned Counsel for the appellants appearing physically once again prays for a short accommodation to comply the office objections in this appeal of the year 2019.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2019, sufficient and several opportunities even as a final last chance were all given to him, despite which he has not complied the office objections.

As such, granting of any further time to them for show convincing reasons would be only on cost. Accordingly, as a last opportunity a week's time is granted, however at the cost of Rs.500/- payable by the appellants to the Legal Services Committee of this Court within three days and filing a compliance memo along with RFA No. 1588/2019

receipt in the Registry within three days from today.

In case office objections are not complied with and cost is not paid within a period of one week, Registry to list this matter on 20.12.2021".

In spite of the above, the appellants have neither

complied the office objections nor appeared physically nor

through video conference and made any submission

regarding the non-compliance of office objections.

As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for

non-compliance of office objections as well for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBB