Karnataka High Court
Smt Vishlakshi S Nayak vs The Commissioner on 29 May, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18113
RFA No. 991 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.991 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VISHALAKSHI S.NAYAK,
D/O SRI S.SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT. POORNIMA S.NAYAK
AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O SRI S.SUBBANNA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SHIVAPUR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 576 112.
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI A.M.RAMARAJU
Digitally signed by
S/O. LATE SRI MUNISWAMYRAJU
BASAVARAJU RESIDING AT NO.536, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
PAVITHRA
V BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 041.
...APPELLANTS
(A1 AND A2 (COURT NOTICED SERVED))
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18113
RFA No. 991 of 2018
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LATHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.02.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.25955/2008 ON THE FILE OF
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL
UNIT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The appellants being the plaintiffs have filed the suit
to appear through their General Power of Attorney Holder.
The trial Court has dismissed the suit.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal
through the General Power of Attorney Holder who was in
the trial Court in the suit. It is the observation of this
Court on 14.03.2024 that the General Power of Attorney
Holder representing appellant Nos.1 and 2 died during the
pendency of the appeal and thereafter, the Advocate for
NC: 2024:KHC:18113
the appellants filed a retirement memo on 15.11.2023.
This Court on 14.03.2024 has ordered to issue notice to
the original appellant Nos.1 and 2. The said Court notice
returned un-served for want of insufficient address.
However, this Court has once again ordered to issue notice
to appellant Nos.1 and 2 through the process server of the
trial Court and obtain signature of the responsible person
i.e., Village Account Officer of the concerned village.
3. In pursuance of the Court notice issued through
the trial Court, the office of the Senior Civil Judge & ACJM,
Karkala Taluk, has submitted a report dated 18.04.2024
that service to appellant Nos.1 and 2 held sufficient. It is
the report of the registry of the trial Court that elder sister
of appellant No.2 was served with notice on behalf of
appellant No.1 and notice to appellant No.2 was served
personally. Hence, service of notice is held sufficient. In
respect of it, the appellants have not made any recourse
to appear in this appeal or to make appearance through an
Advocate or through any other person.
NC: 2024:KHC:18113
4. Though, this Court on 14.03.2024 has not
ordered permitting the Advocate to retire from the case,
but for considering the issuance of Court notice to the
appellants, it is deemed that the Advocate appearing for
the appellants was permitted to retire from the case.
5. Therefore, there is no representation made by
the appellants or did not make any effort to make
representation through the Advocate or through any other
person. Hence, without any alternative way, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed for default. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed for default.
6. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any,
do not survive for consideration and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
