The single judge dismissed the appellant's appeal due to non-prosecution and failure to rectify objections regarding unsigned judgments, while directing administrative inquiry into the deficiency.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; directions to Registrar General; explanation from judicial officer sought.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.1193 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAIRAJ S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O GANGAMMA NO.85, VINOBANAGAR KADUGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 045.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
2 . SMT. M.SHANTHI D/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
3 . SMT. PREMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
2
RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
4 . SMT. N.NIRMALA D/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
5 . SRI.R.RAMU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, RESIDING AT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
6 . SRI JOLLY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
7 . SRI JAGADEESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
8 . SMT. RANI D/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
3
9 . SMT. KALAISELVI D/O AMUDHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, PILLANNA GARDEN, II STAGE, BENGALURU-45
10 . MR.FAYAZ PASHA S/O LATE OMAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.23, ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD, BILALNAGAR CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU-560 045.
11 . MR.EJAZ PASHA S/O LATE OMAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.23, ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD, BILALNAGAR CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU-560 045. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S NO.8164/2013 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF CPC FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUIT IS DISMISSED.
This R.F.A. coming on for Orders, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the appellant not present.
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
4
The office has raised objection stating that, the impugned order does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, none of the impugned papers bear the signature of the Presiding Officer, who has passed the impugned Judgment.
Since five years, the matter is pending for compliance of the said objection and for rectifying the same, the appellant has not taken effective steps.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, on the previous date, this court has made observation that, though the matter has been repeatedly coming the appellants have not complied the office objection. As such, for non-compliance of the office objection and for non-prosecution, the appeal stands dismissed.
However, the Registrar General to seek explanation of the concerned judicial officer who is shown to have delivered the impugned Judgment calling for reasons as to why he has not subscribed his signature on any page of the Judgment including the operative portion of the Judgment.
R.F.A.No.1193/2016
5
Registrar General also to seek submission from the Principal District Judge and City Civil and Sessions Judge for issuance of such kind of certified copies to the clients or Advocates without ascertaining that the Judgment is duly signed by the pronouncing judicial officer.
Explanation to be secured and processed within three weeks from today.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal lacks prosecution where the appellant failed to comply with office objections regarding unsigned judgments.
Whether the High Court should dismiss the appeal for non-compliance while seeking administrative explanation from the concerned officers.
What directions should be issued by the Registrar General to address systemic issues regarding authenticated copies of judgments.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Jairaj S/o Late Muniswamy
Sri. Venkatesh S/o Late Muniswamy
Smt. M.Shanthi D/o Late Muniswamy
Smt. Prema D/o Late Muniswamy
Smt. N.Nirmala D/o Late Muniswamy
Sri. R.Ramu S/o Late Muniswamy
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
