Sri. M C Vijay Kumar vs Mr. Thomas Xavier
2021 Latest Caselaw 4023 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

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

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.154 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.C.VIJAY KUMAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SMT. INDIRA. T
W/O LATE M.C. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2301,
VIGNESH, YADAV LAYOUT,
ARAVIND NAGAR,
RAMAKRISHNA ROAD,
NEAR AYAPPA TEMPLE,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
KAMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 084.

                                 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA GOWDA.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MR. THOMAS XAVIER
       S/O XAVIER THOMAS
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2.     MRS. POWLY THOMAS
       W/O MR. THOMAS XAVIER,
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
                                                     RFA No. 154/2019
                                   2



        BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
        NO.32/1, 4TH CROSS,
        KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
        ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
        BENGALURU-560 084.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SABASTIAN M.A. ADVOCATE)


        THIS   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.4948/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-30), BENGALURU
CITY,     DISMISSING        THE        SUIT       FOR      PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND ETC.,


        THIS       REGULAR             FIRST      APPEAL        COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Learned counsel for the appellant is present

physically in the Court and prays for some more time in

this matter.

RFA No. 154/2019

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

that the appeal is of the year 2019. Inspite of granting

several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not

complied the office objections. Sufficient opportunities

have already been granted to the appellant in that regard,

even as a last chance, as long back on 04.03.2021. Even

thereafter, the appellant did not comply the office

objections.

Once again on 12.04.2021, time was granted to the

appellant on imposing a cost of `500/-. Till date the

appellant has neither paid the cost nor even complied the

office objections. As such, all the office objections have

remained unattended by the appellant. This itself clearly

go to show that the appellant is not evincing any interest

in proceeding with the matter. Mere physical appearance is

not enough for prosecuting the matter, unless the office

objections which are outstanding for more than two years

are complied with.

RFA No. 154/2019

As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for

non-compliance of office objections, as well as for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mbb