IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1196 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. G. Nagaraj S/o Late Gangaiah Aged about 82 years, Residing at No.4, 3rd Main Road, Rajanna Layout, Hoysalanagar Nagar, R.M.Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 016.
(By Sri S. Shivaprasad, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. M. Ramesh Aged about 35 years, S/o S. Murugan, Residing at 1851, Atharai Road, Devikapuram Harani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai Dist. Tamilnadu Represented by its GPA Holder Sri. N. Natrajan, Aged about 55 years, S/o Chinnakolanda Pillai Residing at No.37, 7th Cross, Jai Bharath Nagar, Bangalore-33.
.. APPELLANT 2. Smt. Sulochana Shekhar Aged about 44 years, W/o R. Rajashekar Residing at PGT Quarters, No.4, 5th Main, Kendriya Vidyalaya, MEG and Centre, Bangalore-560 042.
.. RESPONDENTS ********** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2017 passed in O.S. No.1464/2013, on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH No.15), Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that the appellant had remained absent on the previous dates of hearing also.
This Court on 27.11.2019 has made the following observation:
“ Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
From the record, it appears that on the previous date of hearing i.e. 06.09.2019 also, the learned counsel for the appellant had remained absent. As such, as finally, a week’s time is granted for his appearance and proceeding further in the matter by making it clear that in case of non appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the next date of hearing and not proceeding further in the matter, the Court would be constrained to pass appropriate order in this appeal including the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution.
List the matter in the next week.”
Despite the above, the appellant has neither appeared nor shown any reason for not prosecuting the appeal. As such, it has to be inferred that the appellant has not evinced interest in prosecuting the appeal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*