Karnataka High Court
M/S Srivaibhav Engineering ... vs M/S Delta Trading Corporation on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25474
RFA No. 2185 of 2017
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. 2185 OF 2017 (MON)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRIVAIBHAV ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT NO.12/31,
BEHIND MINERVA MILL, GOPALAPRAM,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR:
SRI P.N.SHVARMAIAH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M Y LOKESHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S DELTA TRADING CORPORATION
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT NO.143/14,
Digitally
signed by DUGALAMA LAYOUT, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
VEENA
KUMARI B 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
Location:
High Court of BANGALORE-560058.
Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX
MRS. VASUDA ALVA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER E., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI
RULE 1, 2 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.09.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.7824/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25474
RFA No. 2185 of 2017
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant neither present
physically nor through video conference.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent alone is
appearing through video conference and submits that the cost
imposed upon the appellant on 04.06.2019 has not yet been
paid to him by the appellant.
3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that
while allowing I.A.No.1/2017 this Court had imposed a cost of
`5,000/- upon the appellant payable by him to the respondent.
The said order which was made on 04.06.2019 i.e., more than
four years ago, the appellant has not complied with. Added to
the above, this Court had made an observation as below on
18.07.2023:
NC: 2023:KHC:25474
RFA No. 2185 of 2017
"Learned counsel for the appellant is neither
present physically nor through Video
Conference.
Learned counsel for the respondent alone
is physically present in the Court and submits
that the appellant has not paid the cost as
ordered on 04.06.2019.
Registry has noted that the appellant has
not filed any acknowledgment for having paid
the cost. Added to the above, learned counsel
for the appellant has remained absent.
As such, though the appeal could have
been dismissed for non-prosecution, however,
in the best interest of justice, as a final
opportunity, three days time is granted for the
appellant to proceed further in the matter in
accordance with law, failing which, the Court
may proceed to pass appropriate orders,
including dismissal of the appeal for non-
prosecution."
4. In spite of the same, the learned counsel for the
appellant has remained absent both physically as well as
through video conference and has not shown any reason for
his nonappearance and also for noncompliance.
Hence, as observed on 18.07.2023, appeal stands
dismissed for non-prosecution.
NC: 2023:KHC:25474
RFA No. 2185 of 2017
Respondent is at liberty to recover the cost imposed upon
the appellant in a manner known to law and treat the order
dated 14.06.2019 as a decree for recovery of the said money
in favour of the respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVK
