Sairam Vengatraman, v. Raghu D.
Case brief
What is this about?
Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — MFA No. 7411 of 2025 (CPC), decided 01-07-2026 by Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. Appeal against order dated 23.09.2024 in O.S.No. 6530/2020 (XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-40, Bengaluru) dismissing IA Nos. III and IV under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, 1908; appeal filed under 'U/S.43 RULE 1(r)' CPC. Dismissed for non-prosecution/default of appearance: counsel (Sri. Sukanya Baliga B.) absent, no representation on multiple listings including 17.11.2025 and the fifth listing for non-compliance of Registry objections. Keywords: dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution, non-representation by counsel, Registry objections non-compliance, interim application Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC, Order 43 Rule 1(r) appeal, appellate default, no merits adjudication.
What did the court decide?
The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution: despite repeated opportunities (including being listed for the fifth time for non-compliance of Registry objections) there was no representation for the appellants, who appeared not interested in prosecuting the matter.