Smt Jayamma vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3469 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

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

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.443 OF 2013


BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. JAYAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
       W/O LATE SRI PAPANNA

2.     SRI ANJANAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       S/O LATE SRI PAPANNA

3.     SRI MUNIRAJ,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       S/O LATE SRI PAPANNA

ALL ARE RESIIDNG AT HEBBAL VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-591 221.                  :APPELLANTS

(BY SRI B. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O G.C. AGARWAL, NO. 7/4A,
                                                RFA 443/2013
                              2


SINDHI COLONY, J.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 002                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.N. ANANTHA NARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 17.01.2013, PASSED IN O.S. NO. 4262/1993,
BY X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH-19), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

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

                          ORDER

Learned counsels from both side are physically present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that his notice of retirement sent to the appellants has been returned unserved with the reason of insufficiency of address of the appellants. He further submits that despite his best efforts, he could not secure the correct and present address of the appellants. As such, neither he could communicate his intention to retire from the matter nor secure any instructions from the appellants to proceed further in this matter. With this submission, he submits that since he could not proceed in the matter without any instructions from the party, he is helpless in the matter.

RFA 443/2013

The above submissions make it abundantly clear that being a counsel for the appellants himself, he is unable to contact or communicate to his client about his intention to retire in the matter. In such an event, issuance of Court notice to the very same address also would not serve any purpose. That being the fact, the appellants themselves have not updated their counsel with their change of address or completeness in the address. Consequently, since the appeal has been languishing in this Court for the past eight years, there is no point in keeping this matter pending in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants as above.

In the light of the above, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mbb