Dismissed¶28

Smt. K.P. Veena, v. Sri P S Ashwathnarayan

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025RFA/817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 817 of 2023 (EJE); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:1191; oral order dated 13.01.2025 by Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani; appeal under Section 96 CPC, 1908 dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance of office objections; appellant Smt. K.P. Veena (GPA holder Sri G. Manju) unrepresented, counsel Sri. K.B.Naveen Kumar absent; peremptory order dated 06.01.2025; respondents Sri P S Ashwathnarayan and Mr Khadeer Ahmed; dismissal for non-compliance caption; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Pursuant to the peremptory order dated 06.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. ¶28

Smt. K.P. Veena, Vs Sri P S Ashwathnarayan — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1191 RFA No. 817 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2023 (EJE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K.P.VEENA, W/O SRI MANJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,

¶8

SRI G.MANJU, S/O SRI GOVINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING/AT NO. B-709, 4^TH PHASE, DOMLUR 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 071.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K.B.NAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI P S ASHWATHNARAYAN S/O SRI P M SWAMY RAO, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10, SHOP SITE, 8^TH CROSS ROAD, BINNAMANGALA, 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶15

MR KHADEER AHMED FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT P AND T COLONY, BHARATH MATHA LAYOUT, NO.13 D.J. HALLI BANGALORE.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1191 RFA No. 817 of 2023

¶18

ALSO AT AMBUR BIRIYANI, GROUND FLOOR, NO.10, SHOP SITE, 8^TH CROSS ROAD, BINNAMANGALA 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 06.01.2025, on that day, finally a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’.

¶25

The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellant has not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:1191 RFA No. 817 of 2023

¶28

order dated 06.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections.

¶29

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶30

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. K.P. Veena, v. Sri P S Ashwathnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K.P. Veena, v. Sri P S Ashwathnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chougule Associates Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

7EDGE Private Limited Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I

Sri Syed Pyarejan Vs Zaiherunnisa

Smt. Leela Vs Gobi Rajaraman

Smt. Yashodamma. H. N. Vs Sri. Lingaraju. M. B.