This revision application before the High Court of Karnataka was dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellants' counsel failed to appear despite prior court orders warning of dismissal for non-appearance.
The revision application was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of counsel.
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 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.F.A.NO.1995/2010 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
2 . H.A. JAGADEESH S/O H.R.ANNAMALAI MODALIYAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.382, 1ST MAIN SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570 008.
3 . RATHNA W/O C.T.GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.267, 1ST MAIN ROAD 407, SPS, 4TH STAGE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-14. … APPELLANTS
[BY SRI K.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE (NO REPRESENTATION)]
AND:
2
R/AT NO.298, STORE STREET HUNSUR TOWN-571 105.
5 . PARAMESHWARI W/O M. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BELAKAVADI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 417 … RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R4 & R5 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED; R2 & R3 - APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2 & R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2019]
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) ORDER 41 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.169/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR AND ETC.
3
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though this Court allowed the memo vide order dated 2nd January 2020, the cause title has not been amended and thereafter, this matter was listed twice. On 3rd March 2020, none appears for the appellants and so also on 7th June 2021, none appeared. This Court vide order dated 25th September 2021 observed the same and made it clear that if the counsel for the appellants does not appear on the next date of hearing, the appeal will be dismissed for non-prosecution. Inspite of the said order, the appellants’ counsel not appeared and pursued the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision application should be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel fails to appear despite court warning.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
H.R.ANNAMALAI MODALIYAR S/O H.R.T.RAJAGOPAL MODLIYAR
H.A. JAGADEESH S/O H.R.ANNAMALAI MODALIYAR
RATHNA W/O C.T.GOPINATH
H.A.SHIVARAM S/O H.R.ANNAMALAI MODALIYAR
H.A. SURESH S/O H.R. ANNAMALAI MODALIYAR
RANI BAI W/O R.J.S.MURUGESH
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
