Dismissed
Sri. a. Gopal v. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority
Karnataka HCMFA/3386/2021
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2023:KHC:38585 MFA No. 3386 of 2021 IN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
2023:KHC:38585 MFA No. 3386 of 2021 IN THE…
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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3386 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. GOPAL S/O LATE APPAYANNA @ BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/A NO.464, I STAGE IV BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560043.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2020 IN OS.NO.3847/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH.NO.8), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
On 6.8.2021, none appeared for the appellant and hence three weeks time was granted to comply with office objections. On 25.7.2022, 28.7.2022 and on 5.9.2022 when the matter was called out, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, however, sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Again on 21.9.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and hence, the matter was ordered to be listed after Dasara Vacation, 2022.
Even today when the matter was called out twice, both in the morning session and afternoon session, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Till date, the office objections are not complied with. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
Sri. A. Gopal
The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority
The Principal Secretary Urban Development Department
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court