Sri. H. Purushothama Reddy vs Smt. Nasreen Fathima
2023 Latest Caselaw 2284 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                           RFA No. 231 of 2016




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                         REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2016 (RES)

                BETWEEN:
                SRI. H. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY,
                S/O. HANUMAPPA,
                AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                R/A. SINGASANDRA VILLAGE,
                HOSUR ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI,
                BENGALURU - 560 068.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI: T. SESHAGIRI RAO, AND
                      SRI: MANJUNATH M. HEDGE, ADVOCATES (ABSENT))
Digitally signed by AND:
PAVITHRA N
Location: High      SMT. NASREEN FATHIMA
Court Of            D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ KHAN,
Karnataka
                AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                R/A. HOUSE NO.2,
                3RD CROSS, RHA LANE,
                GOWTHAMPURAM
                BENGALURU - 560 076.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT

                       THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
                THE     ORDER    ON   I.A.NO.5   DATED   4.11.2015    PASSED   IN
                OS.NO.1166/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
                SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.5 UNDER
                ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC., REJECTING THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED
                UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 6A OF CPC.

                       THIS R.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
                DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                             RFA No. 231 of 2016




                           JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant is absent, no

representation, even though the matter is passed over twice.

2. The appeal is of the year 2016. Office has raised

objections regarding non-filing of certified copy of the valuation

slip which was filed before the trial Court. The valuation slip is

required to verify the counter claim and the Court fee to be

paid on the same. Till this date, the office objection has not

been complied. From the office note, it is noted that the

matter is listed for 12th time during the period of seven years.

3. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant is

not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PN