Dismissed

Sri. M C Vijayendra v. Sri. M C Puttaswamy

Karnataka HC25 May 2023RFA/2022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a regular first Appeal filed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections. The appellant failed to appear physically or via video conferencing despite prior advisories, and the court refused further time for a four-year-old appeal.

What did the court decide?

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

Sri. M C Vijayendra Vs Sri. M C Puttaswamy — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 2022 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2022 OF 2019 (PAR/POS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M C VIJAYENDRA S/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A CHETTENAHALLI, GEJJAGARA GUPPE POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. ADINARAYANA REDDY N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHIDEVI K KORLAHALLI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. M C PUTTASWAMY, S/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING IN THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING BEARING NO.8, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

¶13

SRI M C CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING BEARING NO.8, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

¶14

¶15

RFA No. 2022 of 2019

¶16

SMT M C PREM KUMARI D/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA AND W/O. SRI. KAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.482, 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560079.

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANT, AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,3,5.

¶18

SRI M NARAYANASWAMY 5. S/O. LATE M C MASTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶19

BOTH RESPONDENT Nos.4 and 5 Are RESIDING IN THE 1^ST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING BEARING NO.8, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to call for records from the XXII Addl.City Civil Judge, set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.3251/2006 by the XXII Addl.Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru only with respect to item No.14 of suit schedule property, to pass any orders that deems fit in the circumstances of the case and to award costs.

¶22

This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

RFA No. 2022 of 2019

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant is neither present physically nor through Video Conference. No reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance.

¶27

On 22.05.2023, this Court had made the following

¶28

observation :

¶29

“ None appear.

¶30

As a final last opportunity three days time is granted.

¶31

In case office objections are not complied with, list the matter on 25.05.2023.”

¶32

In spite of the above observation, the learned counsel for the appellant has neither complied the office objections nor appeared and shown the reasons for non-compliance of office objections. The appeal is of the year 2019, hence, four years old appeal, still the matter is due for compliance of office objections. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to grant further time in this appeal of the year 2019.

¶33

¶34

RFA No. 2022 of 2019

¶35

Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed for

¶36

non-compliance of office objections, as well as for non-prosecution.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

Sri. M C Vijayendra v. Sri. M C Puttaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M C Vijayendra v. Sri. M C Puttaswamy

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

M. Vishwanath Vs P. v. Srihari Naidu

Sri Nagaraj R Vs Sri Srinivasa Murthy

Smt Noorjan Vs Smt Mahaboobhi

Sri. K N Padmanabhaiah Vs Kumari. Yeshashwini

M/S Reva Journey (Globe) Private Limited Vs Sri. Ramanath Bhimanna Alawandi

M Basheer Vs S Prakash Kumar