IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.931 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. Veerabhadrappa, S/o Late Rudramariyappa Aged about 48 years.
2. Balaraj, major S/o Late Rudramariyappa 3. Anand, S/o Late Rudramariyappa All residing at Kothanoor Village Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 077.
.. APPELLANTS (By Sri Srinivasa K., Advocate - Absent) AND:
1. Smt.Vani Ramachandra, D/o. V. Krishnappa, Aged about 47 years, No.211, 37th ‘A’ Cross, Jayanagara 8th Block, Bengaluru – 560 082.
2. Rudramariyappa S/o Late Rudramariyappa Died during the pendency of the suit.
(The Defendants 6 to 9 are the legal representatives.) 3. Shankarappa S/o Late Veerabhadrappa 4. Rajappa, major S/o Late Veerabhadrappa 5. Shivakumar, major, S/o Late Veerabhadrappa 6. Prasad, major, S/o Late Veerabhadrappa 7. K.R. Venappa, major, S/o Rudramariyappa 2 to 6 are residing at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 077.
.. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Imran Pasha, Advocate for C/R1) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-21), dated 31.10.2013 passed in O.S. No.15977/2005 by allowing this appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders along with I.A. Nos. 1/14 and 2/14 this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the appellants absent.
Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent alone present and repeats his submission dated 04.11.2019 that the appellants have not furnished him the copies. A similar submission was also made by the learned counsel for the caveator on 04.11.2019 alleging that despite the direction of this Court dated 25.10.2019 to the appellants to furnish copies to the caveator, the appellants have not complied the same.
On 04.11.2019, this Court made the following observation:
“ Called again in the second round.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator alone present and submits that despite the order dated 25.10.2019, the appellants have not furnished him the copies.
A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, on 25.10.2019, at the submission made by the caveator, the appellants were asked to furnish copies to the caveator, if not furnished already.
Till date, the appellants’ counsel has neither furnished the copies nor appeared and made any submission in that regard. Thus, it can be inferred that the appellants are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the appeal.
However, as a last chance, one more week is granted to the appellants’ counsel to furnish copies to the caveator and to proceed further in this matter. Otherwise, the Court would be proceeding to pass appropriate order in this appeal, including dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.”
In view of the fact that despite several opportunities given to the appellants to proceed further in this matter and furnish copies to the respondents, since the appellants are not evincing any interest to prosecute this appeal which is of the year 2014, it has to be inferred that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the matter.
As such, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*