High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear despite granted time for service of notice.
Appeal dismissed for not taking steps as well as 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A. No. 676 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI N VENKATESH S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.1597
NEAR GLASS FACTORY B B NAGAR, SAHAKARNAGAR POST KODIGEHALLI BENGALURU - 560 092
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SAVITHA T.H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 092.
RFA.No.676 /2021
2
DEFENDANT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KRISHNAPPA BUILDING GANGA BHAVANI ROAD KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 092.
RFA.No.676 /2021
3
10 . KUM. PARVATHI D/O LATE MUNIARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
DEFENDANT NOS.6 TO 10 ARE R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE NEXT TO KODIGEHALLI PANCHAYATH OFFICE SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 092.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 OF CPC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-27) DATED 01.06.2021 IN DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT IN O.S. NO.4184/12 FILED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY DECREE THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA.No.676 /2021
4
JUDGMENT
None appear for the appellant either personally or
through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance.
in spite of granting sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure service of notice to the respondents. However, even in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, on 26.11.2021, this Court, as a final opportunity, has granted a week's time for the appellant to pay the process for service of notice upon the respondents. In spite of the same, since the appellant has neither taken steps and not even appeared in the matter, nor even shown any reason for his non-appearance and for not taking steps, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not interested in
RFA.No.676 /2021
5
prosecuting the appeal and to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents.
taking steps as well as for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
vgh*
Sri N Venkatesh
Munichinamma
Sri Ramarajappa
Smt Akkayamma
Sri Shailaja
Sri Srinivasa
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
