Ramesh Babu G vs Jecintha
2023 Latest Caselaw 394 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                     RFA No. 2215 of 2018




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2215 OF 2018 (INJ)
               BETWEEN:

                   RAMESH BABU G.
                   S/O SATHYANARAYANA
                   AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
                   R/A C/O RAMAMURTHY T.J.
                   NO.99/D2, BULL TEMPLE ROAD
                   BENGALURU-560 019
                                                             ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. K.S.MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

               AND:

Digitally          JECINTHA
signed by          D/O LATE GASPER
PANKAJA S          AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Location:          R/A NO.43/1, 5TH CROSS
High Court         DORESANIPALYA
of Karnataka       BANNERGHATTA ROAD
                   BENGALURU-560 079
                                                           ...RESPONDENT

                      THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
               THE COMMON JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 3-8-2018, PASSED IN
               O.S. NO.37798 OF 2014 AND THE DECREE DATED: 3-8-2018, BY
               THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
               (CCCH NO.16) AND ETC.
                      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
               COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-
                                                 RFA No. 2215 of 2018




                             JUDGMENT

1. Though the matter is called twice, there is no

representation on behalf of the appellant.

2. On the last occasion, time was granted to comply with

office objections, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Despite the same, office objections have not been complied

with and no material is produced to show that costs has been

paid. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant is not

interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appeal is,

therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution.

SD/-

JUDGE

PKS CT:AN