IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.922 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... APPELLANT (By Sri. G.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI G.MANOHAR VADEHARAJ S/O LATE GOVINDA P.VADEYARAJ MAJOR R/AT NO.238, 32ND CROSS 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 082 2. C.NAGARAJAIAH S/O CHIKKAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.31, PARIMALANAGAR KANTEERAVA STUDIO MAIN ROAD NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096 ... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 25.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7040/2003 ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Called again in the second round.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunity, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure service of notice upon respondents on I.A.No.2/2015.
3. On 11.07.2019, even though the learned counsel for the appellant was absent, still this Court has finally granted a week’s time to take steps. Despite the same, the appellant did not take steps.
4. On 23.07.2019, once again the matter was called out. On the said day, in the first round, the learned counsel for the appellant was absent. When the matter was taken up in the second round, then also, the learned counsel for the appellant was absent. As such, this Court proceeded to make the following observations on 23.07.2019 as under:
“Called again in the second round. None appear in the matter.
As a last chance, two weeks time is granted to the appellant to take steps against the respondents making it clear that non taking of steps within the said time by furnishing correct and complete present address of the respondents would lead this Court to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.”
5. The above order clearly go to show that this appeal is of the year 2015, the appellant is not evincing any interest in taking steps in respect of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the only respondents in this appeal. Thus, the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*