IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.226 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri H. Purushothama Reddy, S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 55 years, R/a Singasandra Village, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 068.
(By Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate - Absent) AND:
Sri Laxmikant Kulkarni S/o late Babarao Kulkarni, Aged about 60 years, R/a House No.953, 3rd Main, ‘C’ Block, AECS Layout, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037.
(By Sri B.E. Shreedhar, Advocate) .. APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the order on I.A. No.5 dated 04.11.2015 passed in O.S. No.533/2014, on the file of XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing I.A. 5 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, rejecting the counter claim filed under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC, etc.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
In spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities to comply the office objections, the appellant has not complied the office objections, even for five times.
On 11.10.2019, this Court has made the following observation in the matter:
“None appear.
As a last chance, a week’s time is granted to the appellant to comply office objections, making it clear that in case of non compliance, this Court may be constrained to pass appropriate order including the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.”
Despite the above, in view of the fact that the appellant has not complied the office objections, not appeared and shown any reason for non compliance, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance of the office objections as well for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*