IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.1801 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Mr. Vincent, S/o Cherival, Aged about 65 years, R/at Kacharakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 084. ….Appellant (By Sri Syed Zahar, Advocate) AND:
The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2016 passed in O.S. No.296/2016 on the file of the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
ORDER Called again in the second round. Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2016, till date, the appellant has not taken steps to issue notice to the respondent. Even after this Court ordered for issuance of notice, sufficient opportunities have been given to the appellant to pay the process to issue notice to the respondent. Despite which, the appellant has not complied the same. As such, on 31.7.2019, this Court made the following observation :
“ Learned counsel for the appellant absent.
As finally, a week’s time is granted to pay process making it clear that non-payment of process with necessary copies, would lead this Court to pass appropriate order including dismissal of the appeal for not-taking steps and non- prosecution”
3. In spite of granting final opportunity as per the above order dated 31.7.2019, after making it clear to the appellant that non-payment of process with necessary copies would lead this Court to pass appropriate order, including dismissal of the appeal, still the appellant has failed to pay the process fee. However, the appellant’s counsel is also remained absent. As such, he did not even show the reason for not taking the steps in spite of several opportunities given. In such circumstances, it has to be inferred that the appellant not only has not taken steps to ensure service of notice to the respondent, but also not evinced any interest in prosecuting the appeal.
As such, the Appeal stands dismissed for not taking the steps and for non-prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/