Sri Gullappa vs Iti Employee Housing Co Operative
2023 Latest Caselaw 2653 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                        RFA No. 695 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY


                          REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2019 (INJ)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    Sri Gullappa
                         S/O Late Munikaverappa
                         Aged About 80 Years

                   2.    Smt Muniyamma
                         W/O Gullappa
                         Aged About 75 Years

                   3.    Sri Ashwatha
                         S/O Gullappa
                         Aged About 46 Years

                   4.    Sri Munikaverappa
                         S/O Gullappa
Digitally signed
by BANGALORE             Aged About 36 Years
MADHAVACHAR
VEENA
Location: High
Court of
                   5.    Smt Yellamma
Karnataka
                         D/O Gullappa
                         Aged About 50 Years

                   6.    Sri Srinivasa
                         S/O Gullappa
                         Aged About 28 Years

                         All are R/at Mangammapalya
                         Yellakunte Dakle Begur Hobli
                         Bangalore South Taluk
                               -2-
                                          RFA No. 695 of 2019




    Bangalore
                                                    ...Appellants
(By Sri. Mahesha M., Advocate)

AND:

ITI Employee Housing Co Operative
Society Limited
Represented by its Secretary
Being a Society registered under the Karnataka Co-
Operative Societies Act,
ITI Township Dooravaninagar
Bangalore-560016
                                                 ...Respondent
                              ***
      This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the VIII Additional City Civil
Judge at Bangalore in O.S.No.3911/2007 dated 30-11-2010
and set aside the same and allow the appeal and pass such
other order/s in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.

      This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made
the following:
                          ORDER

Called again in the afternoon.

2. None appear in this matter either physically or

through video conference.

3. This is an appeal of the year 2019, as such, one

of the old appeals pending for compliance of office

RFA No. 695 of 2019

objections. On the date 23-05-2023, this Court made the

following observation:

"None appear in the matter either physically or through Video Conference.

As a final opportunity, two days time is granted to comply the office objections, failing which, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders, including dismissal of the appeal for non- compliance of office objections.

In case, if the office objections are not complied with in their entirety within the said time, registry to list the matter on 26.05.2023."

4. This morning in the first session, the following

observation was made by this Court:

"Learned proxy counsel for the appellant attempted to secure an adjournment in the matter stating that he is a proxy counsel, however, after coming to know that several and sufficient opportunities were given to learned counsel for the appellant as was depicted to him including reference made on 23.05.2023, he is now seeking a pass over in the matter.

If office objections are not complied with, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order

RFA No. 695 of 2019

including dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution, before the matter is called in the next round.

The matter is passed over."

5. Now, when the case is called in the afternoon

session, neither the regular counsel on record for the

appellants nor the proxy counsel who appeared this

morning is physically present.

6. A perusal of the office objections which are due

for compliance also would go to show that, they are very

simple and trivial in nature like the requirement of

correctly mentioning the designation of the Trial Court and

the original suit number, filing of synopsis, mentioning the

correct ranking of the parties, removal of the list of

documents, stitching of the I.As. separately, stating of full

cause title in I.A., mentioning the correct name of the

counsel in the first paragraph of the vakalath etc. For

these simple and trivial office objections, the appellants

have taken time from the year 2019 and till today, they

have not complied the office objections. Sufficient

RFA No. 695 of 2019

opportunities of not less than five times have already been

granted to the appellants to comply the office objections.

In spite of the same and despite the observations made by

this Court, as above, the appellants since have not

complied the office objections nor shown any reasons for

non-appearance nor even appeared through video

conference, it is clear that they have not evinced any

interest in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the appeal

stands dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*