The petitioner challenged an order rejecting questions in an O.S. via a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner's counsel failed to appear on the final date of hearing/
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 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.9805 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.S.L.VEENA W/O SRI.SANJEEV B. ATHANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT: 1ST FLOOR, NO.181 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGADEVANAHALLI, KENCHAPPA CROSS, BENGALURU-560 056 ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MAHESH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.B.M.ATHANI S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.77/23, BANASHANKARI NILAYA 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS J.C.NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 056. ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE)
2
W.P.No.9805/2017
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction and quash the impugned order rejecting the questions posed by the defendant’s counsel during the cross-examination of PW-1 on 03.02.2017 in O.S.No.5824/2015 pending on the file of the 7th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
None appear in this matter either through physically or through video conferencing.
On 21.03.2022 this court had made the following observation:
“None appear in the matter either physically or through Video Conference.
On 10.03.2022, learned counsel for the respondent alone was present and made a submission that O.S.No.5824/2015, from which the present writ petition has arisen, has stood disposed of on 22.12.2020, as such, the present writ petition has become infructuous. However, to hear the submission from the petitioner’s side and as the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on the said day, the matter was adjourned to today.
3
W.P.No.9805/2017
Even today also, there is no representation from the petitioner’s side, as well the learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent.
By making it clear that, on the next date of hearing, if the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to appear in the matter, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders, including dismissal of the writ petition as having become infructuous, as a final opportunity, a week’s time is granted.
List this matter on 29.03.2022.”
Inspite of the above, since learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared and not proceeded further. Hence, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
Smt S.L. Veena
Sri B.M. Athani
Dr. Justice H.B.Prabhakar Sastry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
