IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH R.F.A.No.271/2012 BETWEEN:
SRI. DINESH J. SINGH AGED 35 YEARS OCCUPATION: BUSINESS RESIDENT OF 302, WALCHAND PLAZA NEAR AAKAR TOWER GEETA NAGAR BHAYANDER (W) MUMBAI-401 101. … APPELLANT (BY SRI D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
ARDEX ENDURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY, BAL ENDURA ADHESIVES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 73/1B BYREGOWDA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SRIGANDHANAGAR, HEGGANHALLI VISHWANEEDAM POST PEENYA II STAGE BENGALURU-560 091 REPRESENTED BY MR. RAMACHANDRA COMPANY SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENT (BY MISS. SANJANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CREST LAW PARTNERS, ADVOCATES) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26058/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant’s counsel is absent even when the matter was called twice in the morning session and also in the afternoon session at 2.50 p.m.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent is present.
3. On perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that this Court on 30.08.2019 noted that the appellant’s counsel is repeatedly not appearing before the Court and also that the Court would be constrained to pass an appropriate order in the matter, including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
4. In spite of the order passed by this Court, the appellant’s counsel is absent even today also. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR