Dr S M Hashim vs Mr Mohammed Mateen on 29 November, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr S M Hashim vs Mr Mohammed Mateen on 29 November, 2021

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1953 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

DR.S.M. HASHIM,
S/O LATE ABDUL RAHEM,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY,
NO. 1401, 14TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 011.                 ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI V. CHANDRAKANTHAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:
MR. MOHAMMED MATEEN,
S/O MR. MOHAMMED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
TASBI COLLECTIONS,
NO.26, SANIA PLAZA,
OPP. PALACE MALL (THEATRE)
QUADRANT ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001.                 ...RESPONDENT

       THIS   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
                                             RFA No. 1953/2018
                               2


DATED 06.09.2018 IN O.S.NO.7348/2016 ON THE FILE OF
LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-57), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,


      THIS           REGULAR       FIRST   APPEAL    COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /
PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

None appear for the appellant in the matter either physically or through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that this appeal is of the year 2018. Inspite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not complied the office objections. Several opportunities of not less than five times, including final and last chance, were all granted to the appellant, in spite of which, he has not complied the office objections.

RFA No. 1953/2018

3. After exhausting the opportunity, even as finally and last chance also, this Court on 20.04.2021 once again, as finally, granted two weeks time to the appellant to comply the office objections, however, on payment of cost of `1,500/- to 'Karnataka Advocates Clerk's Benevolent Trust' and to file an acknowledgement to that effect in the registry. Despite the same, the appellant has neither paid the cost nor filed an acknowledgement in the registry and not even shown any reason for non-compliance of office objections as well as for 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.

RFA No. 1953/2018

However, the beneficiary of the cost i.e., the Karnataka Advocates Clerks' Benevolent Trust, High Court 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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court