Sri Mohammed Mohseen Sarfaraz vs The Bengaluru Development ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2943 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                        MFA No. 1177 of 2018




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1177 OF 2018 (CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI MOHAMMED MOHSEEN SARFARAZ,
                   S/O B.M. LATHEEF SHARIEFF,
                   AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.12, 5TH 'A' CROSS,
                   BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
                   R.T.NAGAR POST,
                   BENGALURU-560032.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT

                            (BY SRI A. VIJAYA SAI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT )

                   AND:

                   THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                   REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed   KUMARA PARK WEST,
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH     BANGALORE -560020
COURT OF                                                        ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA

                                     (RESPONDENT - SERVED)

                        THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(W) OF CPC,
                   AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 PASSED ON I.A. IN
                   O.S.NO.6945/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY
                   CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING I.A. FILED
                   UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

                        THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
                   THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                          MFA No. 1177 of 2018




                         JUDGMENT

This matter was listed before this Court on

25.05.2023 and the learned counsel for the appellant was

absent. However, in the ends of justice one more

opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the

appellant to address the arguments. Today also there is no

representation on behalf of the appellant. This shows that

the learned counsel for the appellant is not pursuing the

matter diligently even though the appeal was filed in 2018.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD