IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY BETWEEN:
G.Radhakrishna R.F.A.No.384 OF 2006 S/o. K.Gopal Rao, No.287 (Ground Floor), 3rd ‘A’ Cross, 2nd Block, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore-79.
(By Sri.S.M.Hegde Kadave, and Sri. V.Manjunath, Advocates) AND:
D.Vishwanath S/o. A.G.Durgappa, No.57, 12th Cross, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-86.
…Appellant …Respondent **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 R/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:28-11-2005 passed in O.S.No.6881/2001 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 Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Case called. None appear in the matter.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2006, even after granting several and sufficient opportunities to the appellant, still, learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared and addressed his arguments.
3. A perusal of the order sheet dated 05-05-2017 would go to show that, when the matter was taken up on that day, learned counsel for the appellant remained absent. On 29-05-2019 also, the learned counsel for appellant was absent.
4. On 30-05-2019 also in the morning session, none appeared in the matter. On 30-05-2019 in the afternoon session, this Court made the following observations in the matter:-
“Called again in the afternoon. None appear in the matter. As such, it could not be proceeded further.
It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, both side to appear and address their arguments, otherwise appropriate orders in accordance with law including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution may be passed by the Court in this matter.”
The above details would clearly go to show that in this appeal of the year 2006 (original suit is 18 years old), the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter. Despite making it clear that the Court may be constrained to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution vide its order dated 30-05-2019, the appellant has not chosen to address the arguments on his side. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*