Karnataka High Court
K. Damodhar vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 24 November, 2021
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1211 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
K. DAMODHAR
S/O LATE JAYAKODANDARAMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A NO.25, OLD NO.1369/2
GOKUL EXTENSION
5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE-560 022 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH.R. AND
SRI B. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE JAYAKODANDARAMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A NO.103
LAKSHMI ENCLAVE
LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560097.
2. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE JAYAKODANDARAMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RFA No. 1211/2018
2
R/A NO.103
LAKSHMI ENCLAVE
LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560097
3. SRI K MURALIDHARA
S/O LATE JAYAKODANDARAMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/A NO.103,
LAKSHMI ENCLAVE
LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560097
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 001
5. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
YESHWANTHPUR ZONE
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE-560022
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2018 IN
O.S.NO.2338/2015 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-8),
DISMISSING THE SUIT AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE
PRESENT FORM AND ALSO FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF
RFA No. 1211/2018
3
ORDER DATED 18.03.2015 FOR PAYMENT OF COURT
FEE AND ETC.,
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appeared for the appellant in the matter either physically or through video conference.
2. A perusal of the office endorsement made in the proceedings sheet would go to show that in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied the office objections. This appeal is of the year 2018. After giving several and sufficient opportunities, this Court on 21.04.2021, as a last opportunity, had granted three weeks time to the appellant to comply the office objections, however, by imposing a cost of `2,500/- payable by the appellant to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, RFA No. 1211/2018 4 Bengaluru and the matter was directed to be listed on 07.06.2021.
3. On 07.06.2021 also, none appeared for the appellant and as such, the matter was adjourned by four weeks. In spite of all these opportunities and above developments, the appellant has neither complied the office objections, nor paid the cost imposed nor even shown any reason for non-compliance of office objections as well as non-payment of cost and not even appeared before the Court either physically or through video conference. As such, it can be inferred that the appellant is neither interested in prosecuting the matter nor willing to comply the office objections.
4. In view of the above, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, as well for non-prosecution.
However, the beneficiary of the cost i.e., the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court RFA No. 1211/2018 5 Buildings, Bengaluru is at liberty to enforce the said order as a civil decree for its execution in the manner known to law before the competent Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE mbb