IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.814 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Sri. S.N.Mahadevaiah S/o. C. Narayanappa Aged about 60 years No.64, Sudha Nilaya Cubbonpet Main Road Bengaluru …Appellant (By Sri. Subhash Shalgar, Advocate) AND:
M/s. Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., No.1, Tank Road Next to MEG Center Priyadarshini Commercial Complex Halasoor, Bengaluru-560 042 Represented by its Managing Director Sri. Govindraj …Respondent (By M/s. Jayaraj & Associates) **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.5006/1995 on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, partly decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Called again in the second round.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2. A perusal of the previous proceedings would go to show that this appeal is of the year 2014. In spite of granting several and sufficient opportunity to file paper book, the appellant has not filed the paper book.
3. On 07.06.2019, even though none appeared in the matter, this Court granted four weeks time as finally for filing paper book. In spite of the same, the appellant did not file the paper book. As such, the matter came up on 11.07.2019. Once again there was no representation from the appellant side, still this Court as a last chance granted a week’s time for filing paper book. Despite the same, the appellant did not file the paper book.
4. The matter came up once again before this Court on 25.07.2019, when also none appeared in the matter. Once again as finally two weeks time was granted to file paper book. Accordingly, the matter has been listed today.
5. Even today also, when the matter was taken up in the first round and in the present round, there is no representation from either side, which clearly go to show that in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunity, the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter and filing the paper book.
6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution and for non filing of paper book.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*