The High Court dismissed the regular first appeal for non-prosecution and failure to comply with court objections and pay costs despite multiple opportunities.
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1588 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
RFA No. 1588/2019 2
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BUSINESS PARTNER. ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 41 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
RFA No. 1588/2019
3
O R D E R
None appeared for the appellants either physically or
through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for non-compliance of office objections.
that in spite of granting seven opportunities, the appellants have not complied the office objections.
while granting three more weeks time to the appellants to comply the office objections had directed him to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance with specific reference to the office objections from the date of raising of office objections till the expiry of further time granted by that order, till date the appellants have not filed such an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance of office objections.
RFA No. 1588/2019
4
counsel for the appellant, this Court, as a last chance, granted a week's time to comply the office objections including filing of affidavit as per order dated 09.04.2021. However, the same was not complied with. Once again, the matter came up on 08.12.2021, when this Court made the following order:
"Learned Counsel for the appellants appearing physically once again prays for a short accommodation to comply the office objections in this appeal of the year 2019.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2019, sufficient and several opportunities even as a final last chance were all given to him, despite which he has not complied the office objections.
As such, granting of any further time to them for show convincing reasons would be only on cost. Accordingly, as a last opportunity a week's time is granted, however at the cost of Rs.500/- payable by the appellants to the Legal Services Committee of this Court within three days and filing a compliance memo along with
RFA No. 1588/2019
5
receipt in the Registry within three days from today.
In case office objections are not complied with and cost is not paid within a period of one week, Registry to list this matter on 20.12.2021".
In spite of the above, the appellants have neither complied the office objections nor appeared physically nor through video conference and made any submission regarding the non-compliance of office objections.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections as well for nonprosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
MBB
M/S. Sri Maharudra Rice Industries and others
M/S Sri Lakashmi Venkateshwara Rice Mill and Sagar Tekkalakote
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
