IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.32 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri Karthi E.
S/o Sri Eshwaru, Aged 33 years, R/at No.85, Near Duggalamma Temple, 4th Main Road, M.E.I. Layout, Ganapathi Nagar, Bangalore-560 058. .. Appellant ( By SriK.T.Vasudeva Iyengar, Advocate ) AND:
1. Sri Vasudev Rao, S/o.Narayana Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/a. 140, 6th Main, Avalahalli, B.D.A.Layout, Bangalore-560088.
2. Sri Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Narayana Rao, Aged about 48 years, R/a. 140, 6th Main, Avalahalli, B.D.A.Layout, Bangalore-560088.
3. Smt.Radha Bai, W/o Narayana Rao, Aged about 70 years, R/a. 140, 6th Main, Avalahalli, B.D.A.Layout, Bangalore-560088. .. Respondents This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.8796/2013, on the file of the XXXIX Addl.City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again in the second round.
Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, in spite of granting sufficient time, the appellant has not taken steps to ensure service of notice upon the respondents.
3. This Court by its order dated 4.6.2018 had ordered for issuance of emergent notice regarding admission to the respondents. Despite ordering for issuance of such an emergent notice wherein the appellant was required to take necessary steps immediately and without any delay, for more than a year and four months now, the appellant has not taken steps. Thus, on 6.8.2019, this Court made the following observation :
“ Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
Finally, one week time is granted to take steps, making it clear that non-taking of steps within one week, may lead the Court to pass appropriate order including dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution or non-taking steps.”
Even after the above observation and granting him one more opportunity as finally, the appellant has not evinced any interest in taking necessary steps to ensure service of emergent notice upon the respondents. As such, it can only be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed for non-taking steps and for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/