Dismissed

Sri Shanthakumar v. Smt Sumangala @

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021RFA/639/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the regular first appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to comply with previous directions to furnish copies of the memorandum of appeal and interlocutory application to the respondents, despite prior orders granting time.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with the orders dated 17.11.2021 and 25.11.2021.

Sri Shanthakumar Vs Smt Sumangala @ — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 639 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, R/AT NO.4, 1^ST CROSS, NEHRU ROAD, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI HARIPRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. SUMANGALA @ MANGALAMMA, W/O B. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, G-STREET, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶12

RFA No. 639/2017

¶13

¶14

SRI SIDDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, R/AT NO.4, 1^ST CROSS, NEHRU ROAD, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; APPEAL AGAINST R-2 DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2021)

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5058/2009 ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-45), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant is physically present in the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is appearing through video conference.

¶21

After the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reiterated his submission that copies of memorandum

¶22

RFA No. 639/2017

¶23

¶24

of appeal and IA have not at all been furnished, despite several requests made by him, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for some more time to furnish copies of memorandum of appeal and IA to the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶25

A perusal of the previous order sheet would go to show that the present appeal is of the year 2017 and since then, the appellant is not evincing any interest in ensuring service of notice upon the respondent at the earliest and furnished the respondent No.1 with the copies of memorandum of appeal and the IA. In that connection, this Court had passed a detailed order on 17.11.2021 and giving the reasons in its detailed order, the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal as against respondent No.2. On that day also, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 had brought to the notice of the Court as well to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant that copies of the memorandum of appeal and IA were not furnished to him, for which, the learned counsel for the

¶26

RFA No. 639/2017

¶27

¶28

appellant had undertaken to furnish the said copies immediately. Inspite of the same, the said copies are not furnished by the appellant.

¶29

In view of the same, on 25.11.2021, this Court made the following observation:

¶30

"Learned counsel for the appellant is not present either physically or through video conferencing.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 appearing through video conference reiterates his submission dated 17.11.2021 that the copies of memorandum of appeal, IA and annexures have not been furnished to him, despite the direction issued by this Court to furnish the same.

¶32

In view of the fact that the appeal against respondent No.2 has stood dismissed for not taking steps and the learned counsel for the appellant has remained absent, even though the case is taken up and had not even said to have furnished copies of memorandum of appeal and IA to the respondent No.1, as an ultimate chance, a week's time is granted to

¶33

RFA No. 639/2017

¶34

¶35

the appellant to do the needful, failing which, the Court may proceed to pass an appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for nonprosecution".

¶36

Inspite of the above, since the appellant has not even complied the minimum requirement of furnishing the copies of memorandum of appeal and IA on the other side, it can be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter and complying the directions of this Court dated 17.11.2021 and 25.11.2021. As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of the direction of this Court dated 17.11.2021 and 25.11.2021.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

mbb

Sri Shanthakumar v. Smt Sumangala @

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shanthakumar v. Smt Sumangala @

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

M/S Arpithadeepam Vs M/S Apex Silks

Mandeda N Rabitha Vs Smt M Akhila Ganapathy

Sri S Sham Raju Vs Smt Meena

Sri. Basavaraj v. Mundasd Vs Sri. Veerupaksha H M

Sri. P.K. Jagannatha Rao Vs Sri. Muralidhar Bhat

Anil S/O Venkappa Kushalkar Vs the State of Karnataka