Sri K Krishna Murthy vs Sri M L Shivarama Shetty
2022 Latest Caselaw 8199 Kant

                             1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

               R.F.A.NO.2371 OF 2006 (PAR)
BETWEEN

SRI. K. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE G.N. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.757/2015,
7TH 'A' MAIN, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 050.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. N. RAJ URS, ADVOCATE)

AND
1) SRI. M.L. SHIVARAMA SHETTY
   S/O J. LAKSHMIKANTHAPPA SHETTY,
   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
   RESIDING AT GOPIKA STORES,
   ARAKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2) SRI. NANJUNDAPPA
   S/O FATHER'S NAME NOR KNOWN TO
   THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
   MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.757,
   15 "A" MAIN ROAD, B.S.K. I STAGE,
   SRINIGAR, BANGALORE-560 050.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
 R-2 SERVED)

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULES 1 TO 3 R/W
SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.08.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5624/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH NO.16)
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
                                    2



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


                            JUDGMENT

The present appeal is of the year 2006 and arises out of

the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed

in O.S.No.5624/1996 by the XVII Additional City Civil Judge,

Bangalore City, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1-

plaintiff against the appellant-defendant No.1 and respondent

No.2-defendant No.2.

2. A perusal of the impugned order sheet

maintained in this appeal will indicate that the learned counsel

for the appellant has remained continuously absent; in fact

when the matter was listed for final hearing on 30.05.2022,

this Court passed the following order:

"None appears for the appellant though the matter was called out both in the pre-lunch as well as in the post-lunch session.

Learned counsel for the respondents remained present on both occasions.

Re-list on 06.06.2022 under the caption 'orders'.

3. Pursuant thereto, the matter was listed today and

there was no representation on behalf of the appellant when

the matter was called out during the pre-lunch and post-lunch

sessions. Under these circumstances, this Court has not

option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

SD/-

JUDGE

BMC CT:AN