Karnataka High Court
Dr S M Hashim vs Mr Mohammed Mateen on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1953 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
DR.S.M. HASHIM,
S/O LATE ABDUL RAHEM,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY,
NO. 1401, 14TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 011. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI V. CHANDRAKANTHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. MOHAMMED MATEEN,
S/O MR. MOHAMMED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
TASBI COLLECTIONS,
NO.26, SANIA PLAZA,
OPP. PALACE MALL (THEATRE)
QUADRANT ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
RFA No. 1953/2018
2
DATED 06.09.2018 IN O.S.NO.7348/2016 ON THE FILE OF
LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-57), DECREEING 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
None appear for the appellant in the matter either
physically or through video conference. No reasons are
forthcoming for the non-appearance of the learned counsel
for the appellant.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that this appeal is of the year 2018. Inspite of granting
several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not
complied the office objections. Several opportunities of not
less than five times, including final and last chance, were
all granted to the appellant, in spite of which, he has not
complied the office objections.
RFA No. 1953/2018
3. After exhausting the opportunity, even as
finally and last chance also, this Court on 20.04.2021 once
again, as finally, granted two weeks time to the appellant
to comply the office objections, however, on payment of
cost of `1,500/- to 'Karnataka Advocates Clerk's
Benevolent Trust' and to file an acknowledgement to that
effect in the registry. Despite the same, the appellant has
neither paid the cost nor filed an acknowledgement in the
registry and not even shown any reason for
non-compliance of office objections as well as for non-
payment of cost and not even appeared before the Court
either physically or through video conference. As such, it
can be inferred that the appellant is neither interested in
prosecuting the matter nor willing to comply the office
objections.
4. In view of the above, the Appeal stands
dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, as well
for non-prosecution.
RFA No. 1953/2018
However, the beneficiary of the cost i.e., the
Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court
Buildings, Bengaluru is at liberty to enforce the said order
as a civil decree for its execution in the manner known to
law before the competent Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the
Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court
Buildings, Bengaluru, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mbb
