This is a recall file appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The appellate court observed that the appellant failed to deposit the required sum and did not prosecute the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA NO.101 OF 2017 (RES)
BETWEEN :
SRI. VINAY SUDHAKAR S/O LATE N. SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS TENANT IN OCCUPATION OF FIRST FLOOR OF THE PREMISES PROPERTY BEARING NO.35/1 SITUATED AT G STREET HALASUR, BENGALURU – 560 008 … APPELLANT (BY SRI.S. W. ARBATTI, ADV. AND SRI. C. R. PATIL, ADV. [ABSENT])
AND :
SRI. V. S. RAMANATH S/O M. V. SRIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.36 GROUND FLOOR G STREET, HALASUR BENGALURU – 560 008 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SATHYA PRABHA K. R., ADV. FOR C/R [ABSENT])
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.7276/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
2
BENGALURU CITY (CCH 18), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION, ARREARS OF RENT, DAMAGES.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed in O.S.No.7276/2015 dated 21.10.2016 by
the XIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City(CCH.18), wherein he was directed to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also pay the arrears of rent.
3
wherein a week’s time was granted to the appellant to comply with the order. However, as interim order was not complied with, on 01.03.2017 the interim order was not extended. Thereafter, it is noticed that the appellant has not appeared before the Court at all nor has he deposited the amount due. The matter was posted on 09.07.2021 wherein it was ordered the matter to be posted on 16.07.2021 and if the learned counsel for appellant remains absent, the Court will proceed in his absence.
same is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE
ag
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC should be dismissed when the appellant fails to prosecute or deposit the required amount?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Vinay Sudhakar S/o Late N. Sudhakar
Sri. V. S. Ramanath S/o M. V. Sriramaiah
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
