IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.304 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Smt. C.M.Ramalaxmi W/o. C.Muddaveeraiah, Aged about 59 years, R/o. No.14, 4th Cross, II Main Road, Mysore Road, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore-560 026.
(By Sri.Santosh S Nagarale, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Manjula Kumar W/o. S.O.Kumar Aged about 36 years, R/o. No.177, 11th Cross, 4th Block, Peenya, Bangalore-560 058.
2. Sri. Joy Joseph S/o. K.J.Joseph, Aged Major.
…Appellant 3. Sri. K.George Joseph S/o. K.J.Joseph, Aged major.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Residing at #910, II Main Road, K.N.Extension, Yashavanthapura, Bangalore- 560 022.
…Respondents **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:28-10-2013 passed in O.S.No.6653/2002 on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, partly decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Called again in the afternoon.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2. This appeal is of the year 2014 and till date, the appellant has not taken effective steps to ensure service of notice upon the un-served respondent Nos.1 to 3 (all the respondents).
3. When this matter was called this morning, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is taking fresh steps in the Registry. However, he could not convince the Court that he has secured or collected the present, complete and correct address of the respondents to serve notice upon those respondents on their available addresses.
4. The said aspect arose for the reason that though the appellant has taken necessary steps previously to ensure service of notice upon the respondents, but on all those occasions, the same has been returned to this registry with a postal shara with respect to respondent No.1 as ‘no such person in this address’ and with respect to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as ’left’. Since repeatedly the notices sent to the respondents have been returned to the sender with the same shara, the appellant was expected to ensure correct, complete and present address of the respondents before taking any fresh steps. Paying process alone would not suffice to call it as taking effective steps for service of notice. For the fourth time also, it may return with the same postal shara since the parties admittedly are not residing in the addresses shown by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal.
5. After bringing all these aspects to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court passed over the matter, making the learned counsel for the appellant very clear that in case, he does not take effective steps by furnishing present, complete and correct address of the respondents, the Court would proceed to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution.
Despite making the above aspect clear, the learned counsel for the appellant has not turned up now when the matter is called in the afternoon session. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*