Sri V Ravikumar vs Sri R Shivakumar on 3 December, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri V Ravikumar vs Sri R Shivakumar on 3 December, 2021

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

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

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.406 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SRI V. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O SRI VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, 1ST STAGE,
NETHAJI NAGARA
(BASAVESWARA NAGARA),
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 570 028.
                                   ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH.M.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI R.SHIVAKUMAR,
       S/O SRI B.RAMALINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

2.     SRI B. RAMALINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.510, 4TH CROSS,
BANNUR MAIN ROAD,
NEW EXTENSION,
                                              RFA No. 406/2018
                             2


YARAGANAHALLI,
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSORE- 570 028.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS


     THIS    REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 06.12.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.615/2014 ON THE
FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MYSURU,     DECREEING       THE     SUIT     FOR    SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE 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 either physically or through video conference.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2018, in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities of not less than eight RFA No. 406/2018 3 times including final chance and last opportunity, the appellant has not complied the office objections. Even in his absence also, several times the Court has granted time to comply the office objection. The time as a final chance, last chance, one again as a final chance were all granted to the appellant, though the learned counsel for the appellant had remained continuously absent in this appeal.

3. On 16.04.2021, observing that the appeal is of the year 2018, the office objections are not being complied, this Court had imposed a cost of `2,000/- payable to 'Karnataka Advocates Clerk's Benevolent Trust'. Despite the same, the appellant has neither complied the office objections nor paid the cost imposed. Even for his successive absence today, there is no reason forthcoming from the appellant. As such, it can be inferred that the appellant is neither interested in prosecuting the matter nor willing to comply the office objections. RFA No. 406/2018 4

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 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