IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.21 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. T. Rathna W/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 41 years.
2. Chi. Keshavamurthy S/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 13 years.
3. Chi. Pawan Kumar, S/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 12 years.
4. Kum. Nanditha, D/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 16 years.
Appellants 2 to 4 are minors Reptd. by their mother Natural guardian – Appellant -1 All are R/at No.22/2, 1st Main, 6th Cross, Deepanjalinagar, Bangalore-560 026.
(By Sri. Nanja Reddy P.N., Advocate) .. APPELLANTS AND:
1. Smt. M.C.Manjula W/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 43 years, R/at No.2, Cresent House, Near Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bangalore-560 002.
2. Sri. Ramakrishna S/o. Late Channappa, Aged about 48 years, R/at No.19/1, 15th Main, Subramanyanagar, Bangalore-560 021.
3. The Chairman, B.W.S.S.B, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore-560 009.
4. The Chief Accounts Officer, B.W.S.S.B, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore-560 009.
5. Assistant Executive Engineer, No.1, West Sub-Division, B.W.S.S.B., Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
.. RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for C/R-1; Sri. Madhukar Nadig, Advocate for R-2; Sri. M.H.Motigi, Advocate for R-5;
R-3 and R-4 served) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated:18.10.2014 passed in O.S. No.7417/2004, on the file of XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH No.44), partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2015, though sufficient time was granted to file the paper book, the appellant have not filed the paper book. On the other hand, after admission of this matter, the counsel for the appellants has remained absent from appearing in this matter. Even today when the matter was called in the first round, the learned counsel for the appellants had remained absent.
This Court on 14.11.2019, made the following observation:
“Learned counsel for the appellants absent.
Learned counsel for the respondents alone present and submits that in this appeal of the year 2015, the appellants are not evincing any interest in prosecuting this appeal, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2015, after admission of the matter, the appellants have not appeared. However, before proceeding further, as finally, two weeks' time is granted to enable the appellants to proceed further in this matter.”
In the light of the above, I do not find any reason for adjourning this matter simply because the appellants have prayed for some time showing no reason.
As such, it has to be inferred that the appellants are not evincing any interest in prosecuting this matter by filing the paper book and appearing in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*