This order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru disposed of an appeal against a decree for specific performance of contract. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after failing to appear physically or virtually despite repeated opportunities.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.
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 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.1665 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
R.F.A.No.1665/2017
2
D/O VENKATASWAMY RESIDING AT NO.19, THIRUMALA NILAYAM 4TH CROSS 3RD MAIN HOYSALANAGAR, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BANGALORE-560 016.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S J KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI K V NARAYANASWAMY S/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9 RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR RAMAMRUTHYNAGAR EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 016.
2 . SRI K V MURALI S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9 RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR RAMAMRUTHYNAGAR EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 016.
3 . SMT. G.SAVITHRAMMA W/O M B NARAYANAREDDY, D/O LATE GANGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.471, 1ST CROSS OPP KIDS GLOBAL SCHOOL MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE-560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
R.F.A.No.1665/2017
3
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5958/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
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 appellants neither present physically nor through video conference.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, in this appeal of the year 2017, inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunities of not less than five times, the appellants have not complied the office objections. Opportunities as finally were repeatedly given to the appellants, despite which they have not complied the office objections.
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the office objections and for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal can be maintained for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections.
Sri G Venkataswamy
Smt. M Padma
Smt. Hemavathy
Smt. V Geetha
Sri K V Narayanaswamy
Sri K V Murali
Dr. Justice H.B.Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
