IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.472 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
DARULULOOM RAZA E MUSTAFA SUNNI EDUCATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, 7TH "A" CROSS, KALAPATURU LAYOUT, BEHIND CHRIST THE KIND SCHOOL, DOORVANI NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 016, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. K.C. NOOR AHMED, S/O. LATE CHOTU SAB, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. KOWDENAHALLI, DOORVANI NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 016. ...Appellant (By Sri D S MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE ) AND :
1 . SRI. SHEIK ABDUL AZEEZ S/O. LATE MOHAMMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2 . SRI. RAFEEQ AHMED S/O. ABDUL SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3 . SRI. SUHAIL S/O. SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4 . SRI. FAYAZ PASHA S/O. PYARU SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 5 . SRI. SYED YUSUF S/O. NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6 . SRI. AMZAD KHAN S/O. MUNEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 7 . SRI. MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O. PYARU SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8 . SRI. ANWAR BASHA S/O. LATE PYARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 9 . SRI. ABDUL SATTAR S/O. MOHAMMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 10 . SRI. AMEER JAN S/O. LATE PYAREJAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 11 . SRI. SUBHAN (GARE MESTRI) S/O. HONNUR SAB, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 12 . SRI. IMRAN KHAN S/O. JAHEER HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 13 . SRI. THYABPASH S/O. AMEERJAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 14 . SRI. FYZER REHMAN S/O. K.P. MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 15 . SRI. JAHEER AHMED S/O. LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, No.1 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT KOWDENAHALLI, DOORVANI NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 016.
16 . SRI. SAMEEUAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. RICHARD MEDICALS, RAGHAVENDRA CIRCLE, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU. .. RESPONDENTS This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2015, passed in OS.No.3615/2014 on the file of the XVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again in the second round. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, till date, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure service of notice upon the respondents. After ordering for issuance of notice, sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant to pay the process and to furnish copies to issue notice to the respondents. On one such occasion i.e., on 31.7.2019, this Court made the following observation :
“ Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show in spite of granting sufficient time, since more than a year, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure service of notice upon respondents.
However, before passing any further order, as finally a week’s time is granted to pay necessary process fee and furnish copies to ensure service of notice upon respondents.”
Despite the above observation, as per the office note, the appellant has not paid the process fee to issue notice to the respondents. As such, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for not taking steps and for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/