Smt Manjula Devi vs Smt Thulasi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3489 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                               BEFORE

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

                    R.F.A.No.1858 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

1      Smt. Manjula Devi,
       W/o. Sri. Venkateshan,
       Aged about 50 years,
       Residing at No.25,
       G.N. 8th Street,
       Jogupalya, Halasuru,
       Bangalore - 560 008.

2.     Smt. Lalitha,
       W/o. Sri. Ramamurthy,
       Aged about 48 years,
       Residing at : Opp.
       Venkateshwara Temple,
       Whitefield Road,
       B. Narayanapura,
       Bangalore 560 016.

3      Smt. Geetha V.
       W/o. Sri. Varadaraj,
       Aged about 46 years,
       Residing at No.198/9,
       9th Ward, Paper Town,
       Bhadravathi.
                                            ...Appellants
(By Sri. K. Pradeep Naik, Advocate)

AND:

1. Smt. Thulasi,
                                               R.F.A.No.1858/2005

                                 2



      W/o. late Sri. Venkatesh Naidu,
      Age: Major [about 70 years]

2.    Sri. Ravichander,
      S/o. late Sri. Venkatesh Naidu
      Aged Major [about 40 years]

3.   Smt. Bhanumathi,
     D/o. late Sri. Venkatesh Naidu,
     Aged Major [about 38 years]

All are residing No.25,
G.N. 8th street,
Jogupalya, Halasuru,
Bangalore - 560 008.
                                              ...Respondents

(By Sri. M.S. Mandanna, Advocate for caveator/R-1;
Sri.K. Narayana and Sri. S. Suresh, Advoates for R-2;
Sri. Sharma Mallikarjuna, Advocate for R-3)

                                 ****
       This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to call for the records on the file of the XXVIII
Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall Unit Bangalore in
O.S.No.15240/2004 and after verifying and examining the same
may be pleased to pass judgment and decree as prayed by the
appellant in O.S.No.15240/2004 on the file of the XXVIII
Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall Unit, Bangalore dated
15-10-2005 by setting aside the judgment and decree and to
pass such other order/orders and to grant such other
relief/reliefs as deemed fit by this Court under the circumstances
of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This R.F.A. coming on for Hearing, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
                                                     R.F.A.No.1858/2005

                                    3



                            ORDER

None appear in the matter either physically or through

video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for the non-

appearance of the learned counsels for the parties.

The appeal is of the year 2005, as such, one of the old

appeals of this nature pending in this Court.

On 21-10-2019, this Court had made the following

observations:

"Counsel for appellants absent. No representation. Since the matter is of the year 2005 and the counsel for appellants absent, it is clear that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Later counsel for appellants appears and submits that he has furnished process fee.

Order of dismissal of appeal is recalled. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is adjourned to 06.11.2019."

Even thereafter, when the matter was called on

28-06-2021 and 23-07-2021, none appeared in this matter nor

showed any reasons for the non-appearance of the learned

counsels for the parties. As such, it is clear that though the R.F.A.No.1858/2005

appeal is of sixteen years' old and the original suit is seventeen

years' old, still, the appellants are not evincing any interest in

proceeding further in this matter. As such, the appeal stands

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*