A civil revision petition filed to set aside a trial-court order on a defendant's Order VII Rule 11 application was dismissed for non-prosecution, as office objections remained uncomplied with and no counsel appeared for the petitioner.
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 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.480 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 29.06.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN ON I.A. NO.14 IN O.S. NO.63/2016, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT VIDE I.A. NO.14 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(b) (c) & (d) OF THE CPC. AND ETC.
NC: 2024:KHC:1883 CRP No. 480 of 2021
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
year 2021. Till today, office objections have not been complied with. It appears that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S. Shyamasundar
Namana N. Jain
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
