The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of representation and non-deposit of court costs. The court did not issue a process for serving the respondent as the appeal came up on an uncontested date.
The appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution, non-deposit of costs, and lack of representation.
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.
RFA No. 1666 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2006 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT. 15/29 KRISHNAMACHARI SHETTY LANEBRAHAMIN STREETBELLARY
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M V HIREMATH AND D S SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RFA No. 1666 of 2006
R/AT BEHIND SANGAM TALKIES BELLARY
R/AT BEHIND TCV COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR ROAD, OPP- SAI WEIGH BRIDGE, DIST: BALLARI.
2B. T. NAGESHWARAO S/O. T. C. VENGAKASWAMY AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BEHIND TCV COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR ROAD, OPP- SAI WEIGH BRIDGE DIST: BALLARI.
2C. T. BABU S/O. T. C. VENGAKASWAMY AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BEHIND TCV COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR ROAD, OPP- SAI WEIGH BRIDGE DIST: BALLARI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI FOR R2.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JDUGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.102/2001 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), AND CJM, BELLARY BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA No. 1666 of 2006
JUDGMENT
There is no representation for the appellants though the appeal is called thrice in the day. The cost imposed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2022 is not deposited. The learned counsel for the appellants has also not furnished process for issuance of notice to respondent No.1. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal must be allowed despite non-deposit of costs and non-prosecution by counsel.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MOHAMMAD GHOUSE S/O KAMALUDDIN
PADMAVATHAMMA W/O RAYALA VEMANNA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
