IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.478 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahesha S/o. Venkatappa, Aged about 28 years, Kagalipura Village & Post, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru-560 082.
( By Sri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate ) AND:
1. Ramesh S/o. Late Bettaih, Aged about 38 years.
2. Raja S/o. Late Bettaiah Aged about 41 years.
3. Rangaswamy S/o. Late Bettaiah, Aged about 36 years.
.. Appellant All are R/at Dinnepalya Village, Kagalipura Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District.
4. Devarjaj S/o. Mutta, Aged about 33 years, Dinnepalya Viilage, Kaggalipura Post, Bengaluru South Taluk, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bengaluru District. .. Respondents ( By Sri A Chandrachud, Advocate for C/R-1 to R-3; Appeal against R-4 dismissed vide Court Order dated:05.07.2019) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2015, passed in O.S.No.1370/2007, on the file of the Court of Fast Track Court-II Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
Learned counsel for the appellant absent. Learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 3 is present.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2015, in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not filed the paper book. On 12.7.2019, though the learned counsel for the appellant was absent and the learned counsel for the respondents alone present, still, this Court granted two more weeks time to file the paper book.
3. Thereafter, on 31.7.2019, once again the learned counsel for the appellant was absent and the learned counsel for the respondents alone was present. On the said day, as finally, three weeks time was granted to the appellant to file the paper book, making it clear that, non-filing of the paper book within the time granted would lead this Court to pass appropriate order in the matter, including the dismissal of the appeal for non-filing of the paper book and non-prosecution. Despite the same, the learned counsel for the appellant has neither appeared and shown any reason for non- filing of the paper book nor filed the paper book. As such, it has to be inferred that the appellant is not evincing any interest in filing the paper book and is also not prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-filing of paper book and non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/