M/S Shakthi Tyres Retreaders vs The Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 2666 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                         MFA No. 4783 of 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4783 OF 2013 (CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   M/S. SHAKTHI TYRES RETREADERS,
                        BENAGAL KOPPA, NILVADI POST,
                        PERIYAPATNA TALUK-570001,
                        REPT. BY ITS PARTNER
                        MR.R.K.PRASAD.

                   2.   MR. R.K. PRASAD,
                        S/O.P.B. KRISHNA,
                        R/O.BENAGAL VILLAGE,
                        NILVADI POST,
                        PERIYAPTNA TALUK,
                        MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                           (BY SMT. MOHANA KUMARI B.V., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed                SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI , ADVOCATE)
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           AND:
KARNATAKA

                   1.   THE MANAGER,
                        TAJ ENGINEEING,
                        AMBADI LANE, KOKKALAI,
                        THRISUR-680021,
                        KERALA STATE.

                   2.   T.S. SUBASH,
                        S/O.T.N. SURENDRAN,
                        AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                        R/AT HOUSE NO.111,
                        KOODLUR, KUSHALNAGAR,
                        KODAGU-570001.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                            -2-
                                     MFA No. 4783 of 2013




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(na) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2012 PASSED IN
P.MIS.NO.1/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, HUNSUR, SITTING PERIYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 33 RULE 1 OF CPC, AS
UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed in the year 2013 and thereafter

it was dismissed in 2015 and it was restored on filing an

application in 2018. This Court issued emergent notice to

the respondents vide order dated 30.11.2018 and also

made it clear that if P.F. is not paid within one week, the

appeal shall be listed before the Court for dismissal as

against such respondents. Again the matter was listed on

05.04.2019, and there was no representation for the

appellants. However, three weeks time was granted as a

last chance for taking steps and it was made clear that if

steps are not taken within such period, the matter shall be

listed for dismissal on the next date of hearing. On

23.07.2019, the learned counsel for the appellants made

the submission that the needful is done and on verification

it was found that P.F. was not paid. On 20.01.2020, two

MFA No. 4783 of 2013

weeks time was granted to furnish requisites for issuance

of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and it was made clear

that if requisites are not furnished within two weeks, the

appeal shall be listed for dismissal as against such

unserved respondents. The matter was again listed on

06.03.2021, and there was no representation on behalf of

the appellants. However, in the interest of justice, two

weeks time was granted. On 26.05.2021, again four weeks

time was granted to do the needful. On 23.10.2021, at the

request of the learned counsel for the appellants, two

weeks time was granted to do the needful, failing which the

appeal shall stand dismissed. On 25.07.2022, there was no

representation on behalf of the appellants and on

28.07.2022, the learned counsel for the appellants sought

two weeks time to take out notice to respondent Nos.1 and

2 by way of substituted service. Inspite of time granted on

28.07.2022, no steps were taken even by way of

substituted service. Hence, there is no meaning in keeping

this appeal for a period of ten years to take steps and the

appellants also not made any efforts to serve the notice

MFA No. 4783 of 2013

against the respondents for a period of ten years and no

ground is made out to again grant time after one decade.

2. The appeal is dismissed for non-taking of steps.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD