In an appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC, the court dismissed the application for non-prosecution after noting the appellant's consistent absence, repeated adjournments over years, and lack of appearance in the December 2010 appeal.
The appeal was 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 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
R.F.A.No.288/2010(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
SRI RAJENDRA GOYAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE SRI JEEVAN RAM R/AT NO.1240, 24TH MAIN ROAD, 25 'A' CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 2ND SECTOR BANGALORE- 560 068.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A S SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE- ABSENT)
AND
2
MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE -560 048
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.U.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 -APPEAL ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2022)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W O-41, R-1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2009 PASSED IN O.S.1999/2001, ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Case called twice. None appears for the appellant.
3
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution given the appellant's consistent absence and repeated delays.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI RAJENDRA GOYAL
MRS. THERESA FERNANDES
SRI G A MUNIKRISHNAPPA
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
