Sri B Shamanna vs Smt S Nethravathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 2207 Kant

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7480 OF 2019 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.SHAMANNA,
S/O LATE BAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
VAJARAHALLI, BAYPANNA PALYA,
TALAGATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
                                     ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MURALI M., ADV.)

AND:

SMT.S.NETHRAVATHI,
W/O Y.S. PRASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.296, BALAJI LAYOUT,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BAYANAPALYA, TALAGATTAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
                                     ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SURESH T.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

    THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2019, PASSED
ON IA NO.I, IN O.S.NO.556/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE XL
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41),
                               2




BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.I, FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CPC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

The appeal was filed on 05.09.2019 and the

matter was listed before the court on 08.03.2021. On

that day, four weeks time was granted to comply with

the office objections and the matter was adjourned to

13.01.2022. On 13.01.2022, finally, three weeks time

was granted to comply with the office objections, failing

which, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal on

03.02.2022. Again, the matter was listed on 03.02.2022

and finally, one week time is granted to comply with the

office objections, failing which, the appeal shall be listed

for dismissal on 10.02.2022.

2. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity to

the appellant, he has not complied with the office

objections.

3. Even today also there is no representation

on behalf of the appellant. The matter is of the year

2019. Learned counsel for the appellant has not taken

any steps for more than three years. It seems that the

appellant has not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

4. In view of the peremptory order, I do not find

any ground to grant further time.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ssb