IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1194 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M.Balakrishna, Aged about 54 years, S/o. N.S.M. Gowda, No.445, 23rd Cross, BSK II Stage, Bangalore-560 002.
(By Sri. K.S.Ramesh, Advocate) AND:
Nagaraj Karanth Aged about 59 years, S/o. Late K.N.Karanth, No.320, A.V.Road, Fort, Bangalore-560 002.
…APPELLANT …RESPONDENT This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 R/w Sec.96 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated:20.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.3201/2011 on the file of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for ejectment.
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.
According to the Office note, till date i.e., even for the fifth time, the appellant has not complied the office objections.
In this appeal of the year 2017, on an earlier occasion i.e. on 27.06.2018, this Court had granted a final opportunity to the appellant for removal of office objections, subject to the payment of cost of `250/- payable to the Registry. It appears that the appellant has not paid the said cost to the Registry. On the other hand, it appears that he has paid the cost to Karnataka State Bar Council. The said payment cannot be considered as compliance of the order dated 27.06.2018. As such, the payment of the cost ordered on 27.06.2018 still remains due as payable to the Registry.
Apart from the above, on 11.06.2019, the appellant had remained absent in the first round. As such, when the case was called in the second round, the following observation was made.
“Called again in the second round.
As a last chance, a week’s time is granted for compliance of office objections. In case there is non-compliance of office objection, list the matter in the week after next. It is made clear that non- compliance of office objection may lead the Court to pass appropriate order, including dismissal of the appeal.”
In spite of such an observation, since the appellant for the consecutive fifth time has not complied the office objections, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the appeal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of office objections as well as for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*