A motor vehicles accident appeal dismissed because the appellant, unrepresented after counsel retired and served notice, repeatedly failed to appear in court or prosecute the case.
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: 2024:KHC:11597 MFA No. 1639 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH REDDY S/O BASAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BILASANUR VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(APPELLANT-ABSENT)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:11597 MFA No. 1639 of 2016
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT], SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 [ABSENT])
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The name of the appellant is called out thrice in the open Court. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. The appellant is absent.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 10.08.2023 and counsel for the appellant was permitted to retire from the case. The registry was directed to delete the name of counsel for the appellant from the cause list and issue notice to the appellant.
The Registry concerned has issued the notice to the appellant and the bailiff report depicts that the notice to appellant is served. The appellant has received the Court notice. However, he has not made any efforts to engage the service of an advocate or conducted the case as a party in person.
As already noted above, the name of the appellant is called out thrice in the open Court. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. The appellant is absent. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Reddy s/o Basappa Reddy
D.Channappa
Krishna s/o Sri Hari Kakadkar
The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
