IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY BETWEEN:
T.N.Rajan R.F.A.No.863 OF 2006 S/o. of Sri. Thandavarajan, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.167/A, 13th Main Road, Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore-560 026.
(By Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy, Advocate and Sri. S.V.Lakshminarayana, Advocate) AND:
M/s. Bright Metal Industries, No.53/1, 9th Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Represented by its Partner, Sri. Amritlal K. Jain.
(By Sri.T.S.Satish, and Associates) **** …Appellant …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 R/W Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:02.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.2752/1989 on the file of the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, CCH No.2, 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.
None appear in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
Inspite of granting sufficient and several opportunities, the appellant has not filed the paperbook. On 03.07.2019, this Court has passed the following order:
“Called again in the second round.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant has not filed paper book.
On 17.6.2019, in the second round, when the matter was taken up, it was noticing that the learned counsel for the appellant was absent, as a last opportunity, once again two more weeks time was granted to file the paper book. Despite which, the appellant has not filed the paper book.
However, before passing any further order, including the order for dismissal of the appeal for non-filing of paper book and for non-prosecution, once again an opportunity of two weeks time is granted.”
Accordingly, list the matter immediately after two weeks.
Despite granting sufficient time, neither the counsel for the appellant has appeared and made his submission for non-filing of paperbook, nor the paperbook has been filed. The appeal is of the year 2006, as such one of the oldest appeal. Since the appellant is not showing any interest to proceed further in the matter and for non-filing of paperbook, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE PN