Dismissed

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp) v. Sri Ramachandrachary

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2023RFA/189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC for non-prosecution and failure to comply with office objections. Counsel for the appellant was absent, and sufficient time was already taken to comply with trivial objections since 2022, warranting no further extension.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-prosecution.

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19255 RFA No. 189 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA

¶8

PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-27 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER REP BY SRI K D DESHPANDE DELEGATE AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER

¶9

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BRUHAT STORM WATER DRAIN DIVISION DASARAHALLI ZONE BENGALURU-560050.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

SRI RAMACHANDRACHARY S/O NARAYANACHARY

¶15

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.13 2ND CROSS 9TH MAIN BAGALAKUNTE BENGALORE-50.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-27.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19255 RFA No. 189 of 2022

¶21

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.9065/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

¶22

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants is neither present

¶25

physically nor through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for his nonappearance.

¶26

In spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities the appellant has neither complied the office objections nor shown any reasons for his nonappearance either physically or through video conference.

¶27

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that

¶28

the office objections which are yet to be complied with are too simple and trivial in nature, like giving details of the trial Court in the synopsis, execution of vakalat by appellant no.2 etc., To

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19255 RFA No. 189 of 2022

¶30

comply these simple office objections sufficient time has been taken by the appellant since from the year 2022.

¶31

In the above circumstances, I do not find any

¶32

reasons to grant further time for compliance of office objections.

¶33

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp) v. Sri Ramachandrachary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp) v. Sri Ramachandrachary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sadananda Vs Shamila

N Alageshan Vs Managing Director

Mahalingaiah Vs Nijananda Murthy

Smt Munirathnamma Vs Sri Muniyappa @ Police Muniyappa (Retd)

M Raju Vs Smt Sarojamma

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri Althaf Basha