Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Jyoti Construction Co on 7 June, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
RSA No. 5805 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5805 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG - 582101.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING(NORTH)
DHARWAD - 580001.
3. THE SUPTD. ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING
DHARWAD - 580001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Digitally
YASHAVANT signed by
NARAYANKAR YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
GADAG DIVISION, GADAG
GADAG - 580001.
...APPELLANTS
(GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
AND:
M/S. JYOTI CONSTRUCTION CO.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. MANOHAR MUKKANNAPPA KORI,
-2-
RSA No. 5805 of 2013
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. POOPALI DIXIT ROAD,
VILLE PARLE (EAST) MUMBAI,
BY THE GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI. ASHOK SIDRAMAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MULGUND ROAD,
GADAG - 582101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G RAMPUR;
SRI. S.C.HIREMATH(NOC);
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATES)
THIS RSA FILED U/S.100 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:27.04.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.22/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT AT GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD:31.08.2007 AND
THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.117/1998 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM, GADAG, DECREEING THE
SUIT FILED FOR SETTLING THE BILLS DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 5805 of 2013
ORDER
There is no representation on behalf of the learned HCGP. The records disclose that all along time is being sought and subsequently, there was no representation at all. On the last date of hearing also there was no representation on behalf of the State. Hence, it is evident that State is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47