IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1128 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
The Account Development Co-ordinator, Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Tudayekar compound, Near Govt. Printing Press, Sadhankeri, Dharwad – 580 008 Represented by its Authorized Signatory, R.A. Bakale, Age: 69 years, Occ: Pvt. Service r/o Vikas Nagar, D.N. Koppa, Dharwad – 580 008.
.. APPELLANT (By Smt. Rashmi M.R., Advocate - Absent) AND:
1. K.Y. Umesh, S/o Yallappa Age: 42 years Occ: Business R/o shanubogara Street, Arasikere Town – 573 103 Dist: Hassan.
2. The Managing Director, Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd., No.71/2(a), Bagur Hobli, Hosur Road, Near Christ College, Bengaluru – 74.
3. The Sales Executive, Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru.
.. RESPONDENTS This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, dated 01.03.2017 passed in O.S. No.12/2015 and consequently dismiss the suit of the plaintiff against this appellant with costs.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
JUDGMENT Called again in the second round. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. In this appeal, defendant No.2 before the Trial Court has challenged the Judgment and Order passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, in O.S. No.12/2015 dated 01.03.2017, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff which was for damages wherein it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.182,600/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
The Registry has raised an objection during the scrutiny of this appeal regarding the maintainability of this appeal in view of S.19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act as the value of the appeal does not exceed Rupees Ten Lakhs.
3. The appellant though was given sufficient opportunities, has failed to make its submission regarding the office objections. On 31.10.2019, noticing the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court made the following observation:
“Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, on the previous date of hearing also, the learned counsel had remained absent.
As such, as finally, a week’s time is granted to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to make her submissions regarding maintainability of this appeal/office objections. Otherwise, the Court would proceed to pass appropriate order in this appeal regarding the maintainability and non compliance of office objections.”
In spite of the above, learned counsel for the appellant has neither appeared nor made any submission regarding office objections. As such, her submission is taken as ‘nil’.
4. Perused the office objections.
5. In view of the fact that the impugned decree is for a sum of `1,82,600/- with interest thereupon and according to the Registry, the suit valuation does not exceed Rupees Ten Lakhs, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court in view of S.19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act.
6. As such, the office objection sustains and the appeal stands returned to the appellant as not maintainable before this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*