Appeal against an interim order in a civil suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to comply with office objections despite sufficient opportunity.
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 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VANITHA.B, W/O SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.122, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.P, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. PRAKASH.N, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.111, VAJARAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062.
…RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.5400/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-7.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
None appears.
Appeal is listed for further orders regarding non-compliance of office objections for 6th time. Though appeal was filed in year 2023, till date office objections are not complied, despite providing sufficient opportunity. This would indicate that appellant is not interested in prosecuting appeal.
Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
DHA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK
SMT. VANITHA.B
SRI. PRAKASH.N
RAVI V HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
