Dismissed

Mr. Satyam Karyala v. Mr. Subhashkumar Sharma

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021RFA/1523/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. The appellant, appearing via video conference, was granted time to comply with office objections regarding valuation despite multiple prior delays. Later, the order notes that the objections were not complied with, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with office objections regarding valuation.

Mr. Satyam Karyala Vs Mr. Subhashkumar Sharma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1523 OF 2015

¶6

APPELLANT/S

¶7

MR. SATYAM KARYALA S/O DR. K.B. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2005, 185^TH PLACE, S.E. APARTMENT, NO. 104, BOTHEL, WASHINGTON STATE – 98012, U.S.A., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. K.B. NAIDU, S/O K. MARKONDAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A NO. 31, GROUND FLOOR, PONNIYAMMANKOIL, 2^ND STREET, SHOLINGA NELLUR, RAJEEVGANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI.

¶8

(BY SRIYUTHS: RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, K.R. PRADEEP AND SATHYA M.N., Advocates )

¶9

-V/S-

¶10

RESPONDENT/S

¶11

MR. SUBHASHKUMAR SHARMA S/O SHAMSUNDAR SHARMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO. 17, RAMANNA ROAD PARK ROAD CROSS, COXTOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶12

RFA. No. 1523/2015 2

¶13

¶14

MR. ZABIULLA S/O. ABDUL REHMAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO. 1, RHB COLONY, OPP. ANDHRA STEEL, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶15

This Regular First Appeal filed Under Section 96 R/W order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC., 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.08.2015 passed in O.S. 5695/2008, on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

¶16

This Regular First Appeal is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant who is appearing through video conference once again prays for time to comply the office objections. He cites the reason of he suffering from cold and fever.

RFA. No. 1523/2015

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that this appeal is of the year 2015 and several opportunities of not less than eight times have already been granted to him. On the previous date of hearing, it was made very clear to the appellant, that in case office objections are not complied within a week from the said date, the Court may pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. Despite making such an observation and granting time as a final and last chance, once again the appellant is seeking some more time.

¶23

The office objections to be complied is only with respect to the valuation of the appeal for which nearly six years time, the appellant has taken, thus contributing delay in proceeding further in this appeal.

¶24

As such, again as a final ultimate chance, ten days time is granted, however, on a cost of Rs.3,000/- payable by the appellant to the Legal Services Committee of this Court and filing a compliance memo along with receipt in the registry within the said period.

RFA. No. 1523/2015

Failure in payment of cost within the said period and compliance of office objections would automatically result in dismissal of the appeal without any further orders by the Court from the eleventh day from today.

¶29

NOTE: Vide Court Order dt. 17.12.2021, Office objections are not complied with. Hence Appeal stands dismissed.

¶30

T By: UN R By: DS C By: RM

Mr. Satyam Karyala v. Mr. Subhashkumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Satyam Karyala v. Mr. Subhashkumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vijaya Vs Sri Sadashivaiah

R Chayadevi Vs Smt Padma Kishore

Smt M D Pushpa Vs Shankar

Mr v Manoharlal Thekri Vs Smt Latha Karunan

Smt Gauher Muneer Vs Shri Ashraf Khan

Smt G S Chayadevi Vs G S Suresh Kumar