The Karnataka High Court dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC, rejecting applications for time and noting the appellant's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the matter despite a restored file.
The appeal is 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 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.F.A.NO.1823/2011 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDARAME GOWDA S/O NINGAPPA AGE: MAJOR, 3RD CROSS RAMAKRISHNAPURAM S.C.ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 009. … APPELLANT
[BY SRI RAJU N, ADVOCATE]
AND:
AND NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 56, 1ST FLOOR, ‘A’ STREET A.R.EXTENSION, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009.
AGE: MAJOR S/O SRI NINGAPPA R/AT NO.97, 5TH MAIN ROAD
2
6TH CROSS, NEAR AADHI KABHEER AASHRAMA, MOTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032. … RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI A.G.BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 01.12.2015; R3 IS SERVED]
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5704/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIVADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR REDEMPTION AND POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal was filed in the year 2011. On 17.01.2013, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the order of dismissal was recalled vide order dated 07.12.2016 and the appeal was restored to its file.
appellant made the submission that they are exploring the possibility of settlement and sought time. Hence, the time was
3
granted. In spite of calling this matter on 22.09.2017 and 23.11.2017, the learned counsel took time.
4
on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dismiss the civil appeal for non-prosecution due to repeated delays and failure to appear despite multiple directions.
What course the Court ought to take when an appellant repeatedly feigns illness or settlement-fNegotiation excuses while failing to appear?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Siddarame Gowda
Smt. Prabhavathi
Narasimhaiah
Sri Raje Gowda M.
Sri K.C. Gangadharappa
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
