IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA R.F.A. NO. 41/2012 [PAR] BETWEEN:
DR. JYOTSNA SRIKANTH, W/O. K. V. S. SHARMA, 278, SINDHURA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 085.
... APPELLANT (By SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADV., FOR M/S PRAMILA ASSOCIATES, ADVS.,) AND:
1. K. SRIKANTAIAH, S/O. LATE T. KRISHNASHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. 613, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-86.
2. B. S. NAGARATHNA @ B. S. RATHNA, W/O. K. SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.100/A, 1ST R BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10.
3. NIRMALA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. NO.613, 2ND CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-86. ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. K. PRATHAPPAN, ADV. FOR R.1, SRI. SHIVASHANKAR C., ADV. FOR R.2, SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, ADV. FOR R.3) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, ORDER 41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S.70/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-44, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T As the appellant failed to file paper book within four weeks time granted by the Court on 28.11.2014, the appeal came to be listed before the Court for orders on 03.06.2016 regarding non-filing of paper book, on which date the appellant was finally granted six weeks time to file paper book with a condition that failing to file paper book within six weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the bench. Hence, the appellant had filed incomplete paper book without exhibits in order to avoid dismissal of appeal as per the peremptory order dated 03.06.2016. Therefore, the appeal was listed for orders on 19.06.2017 regarding acceptance of incomplete paper book without exhibits on which date the appeal was adjourned to 27.06.2017 at the request of learned counsel for the appellant so as to enable him to take back the incomplete paper book and file fresh paper book. On 27.06.2017, there was no representation for the appellant and further the appellant had not taken back the incomplete paper book and filed proper paper book. Hence, appeal was ordered to be listed today as to why it should not be dismissed for non-filing of proper paper book.
3. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant, nor fresh paper book is filed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and for non-filing of proper paper book.
PMR/-
SD/- JUDGE