Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraju V vs R Subramanyam on 19 February, 2021
Author: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.449 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJU V.
S/O G. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT #1263/4,
23RD CROSS, KHB COLONY
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.M. HEGDE KADAVE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
R. SUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/A NO.1, 6TH CROSS
OUTER RING ROAD
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
PAPAREDDY PALYA
BENGALURU - 560 072.
... RESPONDENT
RFA No.449/2018
2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96(1) AND ORDER XLI, RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND DISMISS THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3755/2017, BY
THE LEARNED IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The matter was once passed over and called again in
the second round.
None appear for the appellant either physically or
through video conference.
2. A perusal of the order sheets would go to show
that in this appeal of the year 2018, in spite of granting
sufficient time for nearly three years, the appellant has not
complied the office objections. On 03.01.2019, three
weeks' time was granted for compliance of office
objections. Thereafter on 14.06.2019, once again, three
RFA No.449/2018
more weeks' time was granted to comply office objections.
Subsequently on 03.12.2019, one more week was granted
to the appellant to comply office objections. On
10.02.2020, one more week's time was granted to comply
office objections. Thereafter the matter was listed on
11.01.2021 which was nearly eleven months after the
previous date i.e. 10.02.2020. The office objections which
were required to be complied within a week from
10.02.2020 were not complied even after eleven months'
time lapsed. On 11.01.2021, this Court by making a
detailed observation imposed a cost of `500/- payable to
the Legal Services Committee of this Court, but still
granted one more week's time as a last chance to comply
office objections, that too, when the learned counsel for
the appellant did not appear in the matter on the said
date. In spite of the same, the appellant did not comply
the office objections. On 27.01.2021 though once
again the learned counsel for the appellant had remained
RFA No.449/2018
absent, this Court, as a last chance granted two more
weeks' time to comply office objections.
3. Thereafter the matter was listed on
10.02.2021. On the said date also the learned counsel for
the appellant neither was present physically nor through
video conference. This Court, observing that sufficient
opportunities had already been granted to the appellant to
comply office objections despite which he did not comply
the same, as such, the matter could have been dismissed
for non compliance of office objections, still once again as
a last opportunity, granted one more week's time to
comply office objections.
4. Thus, not less than seven to eight
adjournments were granted to the appellant to comply
office objections spreading over a span of three years' time
despite which he has not complied the office objections.
No reasons are forthcoming either for non compliance or
RFA No.449/2018
for non appearance of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
As such, it is clear that the appellant is not evincing
any interest in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the
appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution, non
compliance of office objections and for non payment of
cost imposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac*
