Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Nazeer Ahmed vs Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2019 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MOHAMMED NAZEER AHMED
S/O. LATE MD. MOOSA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR,
BEARING AT 131, ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. MOHAMMED BASHEER AHMED
S/O. LATE MD. MOOSA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
BEARING NO.131,
PORTION OF UPSTAIRS,
ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally ...APPELLANTS
signed by
VEENA
KUMARI B (BY SRI. N VASUDEVAN., ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court AND:
of Karnataka
1. MR. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
S/O. LATE MD. MOOSA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 131,
1ST FLOOR, ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BANGALORE -560001.
MR. MOHAMMED AYUB
S/O. LATE MD. MOOSA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 107,
UNDIRA STREET,
CHOWKI MOHALLA
MUMBAI -400001
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
2. SMT. NOORUNNISSA,
W/O. LATE MOHAMMED AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. GAZALA
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. TAMEEN AHMED
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
5. BABY MADIHA
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.107,
UNDRIA STREET,
CHOWKI MOHALLA,
MUMBAI 400001
6. MR. MOHAMMED RAFIQ AHMED
S/O. LATE MD. MOOSA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BEARING NO. 107, UNDIRA STREET,
CHOWKI MOHALLA,
MUMBAI -400001
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
7. MRS. RAHMATHUNNISA
W/O. ABDUL SATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR,
BEARING NO.131, ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
8. MRS. HABEEBUNNISA
W/O. LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.57, 4TH MAIN,
NEW BAGALUR LAYOUT,
ST. THOMAS TOWN, P.O.,
LINGARAJPURAM,
BANGALORE -560005
9. MR. HAKIM ISMAIL SHARIEFF
S/O. MD. HAKEEM SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS.
10. MRS. SALMA TABASSUM
D/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
11. MRS. ASMA TABASSUM
D/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
12. MR. SUHAIL AHMED SHARIEFF
S/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
13. MRS. LUBNA TABASSUM
D/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
14. MR. SHAKEEL AHMED SHARIEFF
S/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
15. MRS. RAZIA BANU
D/O. MD. HAKEEM ISMAIL SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SL. NO. 9 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 97, ARUNACHALAM MUDLIAR ROAD,
CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE-560 051.
16. KHALID AHMED E. M.
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
17. MOHAMMED KHASIM. E
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
18. JAVEED AHMED. E
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.16 TO 18 ARE SONS OF MR MOHAMMED.E,
RESIDING AT NO.131,
ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2016
PASSED IN OS.NO.15457/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants is not present either
physically or through video conference.
2. In view of non compliance of office objections raised
on I.A.No.3/2019, the said I.A. stands returned to the
applicant.
3. On 17.07.2023 this Court had made the following
observation:
"Learned counsel for the appellants is
present and initially prayed for two weeks time
to take steps upon the unserved respondents.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to
show that the notice was ordered as long back
as on 12.04.2019 on I.A.No.1/2019. For more
than four years the appellants have not
bothered to ensure the service of notice upon
the respondents. From the date of order of
notice till today, several dates of hearing
including 31.05.2019, 11.12.2019, 22.01.2020
were all appeared still the appellants did not
evince any interest to take steps. Considering
the same when the Court suggested to the
learned counsel for the appellants that granting
of time would be only on a cost of `1000/- per
day, learned counsel reduced the time from
two weeks to two days. Hence, imposing a cost
of `2000/- payable by the appellants to the
Legal Services Committee of this Court within a
day from today and filing a compliance memo
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
along with original receipt in the registry to
that effect within the said time, as a final
opportunity two days time, as prayed is
granted to take steps for issuance of notice to
respondents.
In case, if the needful is not done by
paying the cost and taking steps, registry to
list the matter on 21.07.2023.
In the meantime, the appellant is also
directed to comply the direction dated
12.04.2019 regarding service of notice on the
learned counsel representing the respondents
in the final decree proceedings before the trial
Court and filing compliance affidavit along with
acknowledgement, if any, to that effect."
4. In spite of the above, appellants are neither paid
the cost nor taken steps even for the first time, even though
notice was ordered more than four years back i.e., on
12.04.2019. He has not even complied the direction dated
12.04.2019 regarding service of notice on the counsel
representing the respondents in Final Decree Proceedings
before the Trial Court and has not filed any compliance
affidavit with acknowledgment about the compliance. This
clearly go to show that appellants are not interested in
prosecuting the matter.
NC: 2023:KHC:25452
RFA No. 320 of 2019
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-
prosecution and also for not taking steps.
Since the appellants have not paid the cost as ordered on
17.07.2023, the beneficiary of the cost, which is the Legal
Services Committee of this Court is at liberty to recover the
cost, as arrears of the land revenue in accordance with law by
treating the said order and today's order as decree. To enable
the beneficiary in the said process the registry to transmit the
copy of the order dated 17.07.2023 and today's order to the
Legal Services Committee of this Court for their needful.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVK
