The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal for non-prosecution. The court issued a notice following the counsel's death, but the address listed for service was deemed insufficient, leading to dismissal.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of service and absence of counsel.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:42328 RFA No. 544 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2015 (MON)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ALPHA OFFICE SYSTEMS, A REGISTERED FIRM OF PARTNERS, WITH THEIR OFFICE CUM WORK PLACE AT NO.R-15, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, SECOND STAGE, JIGANI LINK ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 100. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SRI. S. AMBROSE, MANAGING PARTNER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESTHUR N CHENDRA SHEKHER AND SRI. M. RAJU, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
HBR CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., NO. 3265, 8TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, HAL SECOND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 008. REPRESENTED BY SERVICE MANAGER, S.S.RAJASEKHAR.
…RESPONDENT
NC: 2023:KHC:42328 RFA No. 544 of 2015
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 THEREOF, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4782/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-18) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Earlier appellant was represented by Sri.Kesthur N.
Chendrashekar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Chendrashekar, learned counsel representing the
appellant, by way of abundant caution, this Court issued Court notice to the appellant. However, court notice is returned with an endorsement that the address shown in the cause title insofar as the appellant is 'insufficient' for the service of Court notice.
NC: 2023:KHC:42328 RFA No. 544 of 2015
dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the regular first appeal could be heard when the appellant's counsel had died and calling the appellant's address insufficient for service.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. ALPHA OFFICE SYSTEMS
HBR CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.
V. SRI SHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
