Dismissed

K Ramu v. S N Kalasegowda

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2023RFA/985/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against an executing court order. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to comply with previous directions regarding a report and photographs, and no representation appeared on his behalf.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to comply with prior directions and lack of representation.

K Ramu Vs S N Kalasegowda — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:29614 RFA No. 985 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K RAMU S/O POLAIAHAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.11 INDIRANAGAR SLUM AREA, SANEGURUVANAHALLI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G.R. ANANTHASWAMY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) )

¶11

AND:

¶12

S.N. KALASEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,

¶13

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.248, 9^TH MAIN,

¶15

BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, SRINIVASNAGAR, BANGALROE-560 050.

¶16

SRI KRISHNA MURTHY S/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.10, INDIRANAGARA, SLUM AREA, SANEGURUVANAHALLI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶17

SMT. MANJULA W/O C.VENKATESH,

¶18

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:29614 RFA No. 985 of 2011

¶21

C.VENKATESH S/O CHENNAPPA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 10

¶24

INDIRANAGARA, SLUM AREA, SANEGURUVANAHALLI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.N.R.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-3, R-4 -SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O/DT: 20.08.2013 - NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 26.02.2011 PASSED IN O.S.1558/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard Sri. N.R. Naik, learned counsel appearing for

¶31

respondent No.1.

¶32

None appears for the appellant.

¶33

A perusal of the records will show that the appellant

¶34

was granted an opportunity to serve a copy of I.A.No.1/2018 to the learned counsel for the respondent. Further, the appellant

¶35

was directed to submit a detailed report along with the photographs before the Court as per the orders passed by this

¶36

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29614 RFA No. 985 of 2011

¶37

Court dated 26.09.2018. Such direction was not complied by the appellant.

¶38

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that there is no representation on behalf of the appellant after obtaining the above said order dated 26.09.2018. His submission is fortified by the records of this case.

¶39

This matter is of the year 2011, assailing the order whereby an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC came to be dismissed by the Executing Court. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter as may be seen from the records of this case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BMC

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

K Ramu v. S N Kalasegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ramu v. S N Kalasegowda

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 Muneer Ahamed Vs D S Gangadhara

Smt Arokyamary Vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General

Sri. Manjunath a Vs Smt. Reshmabai

Sri. Allah Bakash Vs Sri. P. Sathyanarayana

Smt Puttamma Vs the Managing Director

The Manager Vs Khajamohiddin