Regular First Appeal was filed against a decree for recovery of money. Due to non-compliance with a peremptory order calling for representation and affording opportunity to the appellant, the High Court dismissed the appeal summarily.
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.798/2010
BETWEEN:
SMT SELVI PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O. SRI PURUSHOTHAMAN, NO. 13, 14TH B CROSS, CHINNAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 046 …APPELLANT
(BY M/S. UDAY KUMAR H.B. & ASSTS, ADV.)
AND:
(BY SRI M.J. ALVA, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8588/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
There is no representation.
2. Despite peremptory order, compliance has not been
made. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal shall be considered in the absence of compliance with a peremptory order.
SMT SELVI PURUSHOTHAMAN
M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, INDIRANAGAR BRANCH
SMT V. RADHAMMA
A S BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
