Dismissed¶¶27

The Bangalore Development Authority v. S a Rajagopal

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025RFA/463/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 463 of 2023; Karnataka High Court; Bangalore Development Authority v. S.A. Rajagopal; dismissal for non-prosecution; dismissal for non-compliance of office objections; appellant/counsel absent; Section 96 CPC; Order 41 Rule 1 CPC; Jyoti Mulimani, J.; decided 21.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also non-compliance of office objections, it appearing that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. ¶¶27

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs S a Rajagopal — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2456 RFA No. 463 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BDA.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MURUGESH.V.CHARATI., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. S.A.RAJAGOPAL S/O. SRI S.G.ATRI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.124, 7^TH CROSS, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. GANAPATI BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908.

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:2456 RFA No. 463 of 2023

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶22

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before the Registrar (P & H) and also before the Court and time was granted to comply with the office objections. Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 07.01.2025, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. However, in the interest of justice, finally, a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the appeal was ordered to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' and also for appearance of counsel for the appellant on 21.01.2025.

¶23

The appeal is listed today under the caption 'for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections' and also for appearance of counsel for the appellant. Despite granting sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:2456 RFA No. 463 of 2023

¶26

not represented. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is

¶27

dismissed for non-prosecution and also non-compliance of

¶28

office objections.

¶29

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶30