Smt.Manjula vs S.Prakash
2021 Latest Caselaw 860 Kant

                            -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

          REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1695/2015

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. MANJULA
       W/O. S.PRAKASH
       AGED 37 YEARS

2.     P.DHARSHAN
       S.PRAKASH
       AGED 12 YEARS
       SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
       NATURAL GUARDIAN HIS MOTHER
       SMT. MANJULA
       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       BHUMI LAYOUT
       OM SHAKTHI NILAYA
       KALKERE, HORAMAVU POST
       BENGALURU-560043                 ... APPELLANTS


(BY SRI E.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

AND:

1.     S.PRAKASH
       S/O. LATE SONNAPPA
       AGED 44 YEARS
       R/AT NO.9, SONNAPPA BUILDING
       C.MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD
       R.S.PALYA
                            -2-



     BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 033

2.   MRS. PREETHI P.NAIR
     W/O. M.DEEPAK
     D/O. K.PARAMESHWARAN NAIR
     AGED 32 YEARS
     R/AT 'KARTHIKA'
     PARTHASWARTHY ROAD
     THOTTAKKARA POST
     OTTAPALAM
     PALAKKAD
     KERALA STATE-679 102

3.   SRI. K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR
     S/O. LATE.K.KRIHNA PILLAI
     AGED 61 YEARS
     R/AT NO.39/4968
     KRIPASAGARAM
     THOUNDAYIL ROAD
     ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682036
     KERALA STATE                    ... RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI BABU .K.A, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2-ABSENT)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7233/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-39) DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR RELIEF OF PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON          FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED             THE
FOLLOWING:
                                -3-




                        JUDGMENT

None appears for the appellants. This Court on

24.09.2018 adjourned the appeal granting one week time

for compliance with the office objections subject to the

condition that the appeal would be dismissed for non-

prosecution if there is failure to comply with the office

objections. Despite this peremptory order, the office

objections have not been complied with. It is obvious that

the concerned is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for default.

SD/-

JUDGE

RB