Karnataka High Court
T Thorigadhalam S/O.Thangavel vs Smt P Shanthi on 18 January, 2021
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.87/2012 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN :
T. THORIGADHALAM
S/O.THANGAVEL
R/AT.NO.J-50, HANUMANTHAPURAM,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU - 21,
REP BY SRI T. R. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY
S/O.T. M. RATHNIAH SHETTY
BEING THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER OF T. THANIGACHALAM.
... APPELLANT
(By SMT. SUMATHI., ADVOCATE (VC) FOR
SRI. U. PANDURANGA NAYAK., ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SMT P. SHANTHI
W/O.LATE P. BALARAMAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. B. PADMAVATHI
D/O. LATE P. BALARAMAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3. B. GOPINATH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2
4. B. MONOHARAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE
THE SONS OF P. BALARAMAN,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.32, 5TH CROSS
5TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
5. THE BINNY MILLS LABOUR
ASSOCIATION HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
NO.14, MADURAI MUDALIAR ROAD,
JALI MOHALLA, BENGALURU - 560 053
REPTD BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
6. SURVEY SETTLEMENT EMPLOYEES
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
SURVEY SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT
K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU.
7. P. BHARATHI
W/O.S. N. PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
8. S. P. UDAY
S/O. S. N. PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT.NO.463, I E CROSS,
8TH MAIN, X BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 79.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. H.R.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R4;
SRI. C. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8;
R5, R6 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED
3
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2013 APPEAL ABATED
AGAINST R-3)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2011
PASSED IN O.S. NO. 8110/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
On 4.1.2021, none appeared for the appellant, recording
the same, the appeal was directed to be called today
observing that the appeal could be dismissed for default if
paper books are not filed.
Smt. Sumathi, learned Counsel, who appeared for the
appellant before this Court on 27.11.2018 as found in the
order sheet, appears today and submits that though the
appellant handed over 'No Objection Certificate' from the
previous Counsel and the records to her, she has not received
further instructions and therefore she is handicapped in
taking further steps. The learned Counsel further submits
that Court notice may be issued to the appellant.
It is seen that paper books have not been filed for over
five years. A party to the proceeding is expected to be diligent
if he/she wants adjudication of a lis on merits. The
proceedings before this Court do not establish that the
appellant is diligent. The Court notices cannot be insisted
upon as a matter of right in all matters, and it is only in
circumstances where the Courts could opine that a party may
not be aware of the proceeding, Court notices are issued. In
the present case, none of those circumstances from which
such inference can be drawn are made out.
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for default.
] SD/-
JUDGE
AN/-
