Miscellaneous first appeal filed against rejection of a restoration petition under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant had no representation on repeated occasions.
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 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2792 OF 2015 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
R. LALITHA, W/O SHANKARALINGAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT BANASHANKARI, TUMAKURU TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER S.P.A HOLDER SRI. SHANKARALINGAIAH C, S/O LATE H. CHIKKANNA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L 1. B.N. SHIVANNA, Location: High S/O NAGAPPA, Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT VIDYANAGARA, TUMAKURU - 572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(c) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2015 PASSED IN MIS NO.33/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 9 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 19 AND SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI)
passed order that if steps are not taken within two weeks, list the matter for dismissal of the appeal against respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:28487 MFA No. 2792 of 2015
representation for the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK
2 provisions across 1 enactments
R. LALITHA
B.N. SHIVANNA
NARASINGAPPA
RAVI V HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
