IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.597 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Smt.Rathnamma, Aged about 48 years, W/o Rajanna, R/at No.20, 5th Cross, Bramaramba Nilaya, Jannajyothi Nagar, Ullalu Main Road, Bangalore. .. Appellant ( BY Sri M.S.Harinath, Advocate ) AND:
Smt.Manjula G., Aged about 36 years, W/o Late R.Mohan Kumar, R/at : Parasamane Apartment, No.108, `D’ Block, Kengeri Upanagara Post, R.V.College, Jnanabharathi, Mysore Main Road, Bengaluru-560 059. .. Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014, passed in O.S.No.6462/2011, on the file of the V Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-13), dismissing the suit for specific performance.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. In this appeal of the year 2016, till date, the appellant has not ensured the service of notice upon the sole respondent.
3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that after ordering issuance of notice in May 2018 till date, the appellant is not evincing any interest in paying the process fee etc., to serve the notice upon the sole respondent.
4. On 6.8.2019, this Court observing that learned counsel for the appellant had remained absent and that he had not taken steps to ensure service of notice upon the sole respondent, however, granted a week’s time as final opportunity, making it clear that the appeal would be dismissed in case the steps are not taken.
5. Despite which, since the appellant has not evinced any interest in taking steps to ensure service of notice upon the sole respondent, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for not taking steps and also for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/