IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.543 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
Sri H.Shankar Shetty, S/o late S.Rajeeva Shetty Aged about 55 years, Ex Secretary of Rajajinagar Institute, Residing at No.13, 6th Main, Nagarabavi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 072. .. Appellant ( By Sri A.Gunasekaran, Advocate ) AND:
M/s.B.R.V.Institute of Sports and Culture, Rep.by its Secretary, No.1070/68, 18th B Main Road, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010. .. Respondent ( By Sri R.Chandranna, Advocate ) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009, passed in O.S.No.7997/2002, on the file of the III Addl.city Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.25), decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. Learned counsel for the respondent alone present.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has remained absent in this matter and is not showing any interest in prosecuting the appeal. He also submits that, earlier on 31.7.2013, the appeal was dismissed once for non-prosecution and later the said order came to be recalled at the application of the appellant. Despite the same, the appellant is not evincing any interest. As such, he prays for passing an appropriate order in the appeal, including the order for dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
3. A perusal of the previous order sheet would go to show that this appeal was dismissed on 31.7.2013 by this Court with the following observation :
“ The learned counsel for the appellant remains absent. Though the matter is called out on several dates of hearing, he has remained absent, consistently. The learned counsel for the respondent has always been present and today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent demonstrates that there is no substance in the appeal and no grounds are made out having regard to the categorical findings of the court below.
In any event, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the counsel remaining absent continuously.”
Thereafter, at the application filed by the appellant, that too, with a delay of 87 days, the said order dated 31.7.2013 was recalled by this Court on 5.1.2015. Even after getting the said order recalled and appeal is restored, the appellant is not showing any interest in prosecuting the matter. As could be seen from the order sheet that on several dates of hearing thereafter also the appellant has continuously remained absent. As such, on 2.7.2019, this Court proceeded to make the following observation :
“ The learned counsel for the respondent/caveator alone is present.
None appear for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2010, despite granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not addressed the arguments on the main appeal.
On 06-06-2019, there was no representation in the matter. On 25-06-2019, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present. Thereafter, once again, the matter was taken up on 26-06-2019.
On 26-06-2019, when the matter was called in two rounds, learned counsel for the appellant had remained absent. This shows that the appellant is not evincing any interest in appearing and addressing his arguments in the matter.
However, before passing any further orders including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, I am of the view that, a final opportunity be granted to the appellant.
Accordingly, list this matter on 09-07-2019.
It is made clear that in case the parties fail to address their arguments on the said date, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.”
The above details would clearly go to show that in this appeal of the year 2010, which is one among the old appeals pending before this Court (the original suit is of the year 2002, as such 17 years old), the appellant is not evincing any interest to prosecute the appeal. Despite earlier the appeal was dismissed and later restored, still the appellant is not showing any interest in appearing in the matter and addressing his argument on the main appeal. As such, I am inclined to hold that the appellant since is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/