Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2024 DAILYLAW 810 (KAR)

SRI M A TABREAZ v. SRI RICHORD JOYCE

RFA/1500/2014 · 2026-06-18

Sachin Shankar Magadum

Original Suitbody2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1500 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. M.A.TABREAZ S/O MOHDAMMED ARIFULLA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8/4, 10TH "A" CROSS, ANEPALYA, NEELASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560 047. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VANAJAKSHI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RASHEED KHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RICHORD JOYCE S/O S.A.JOYCE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO. 1054, BDA QUARTERS, II STAGE, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE-560 047. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.VENKATARAMANA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 30.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.1358/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF XVIII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 ORDER Smt.Vanajakshi., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Rasheed Khan., for the appellant and Sri.P.Venkataramana., learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent have appeared in person. The captioned appeal is listed today for orders regarding non compliance of office objections. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that short accommodation may be granted to comply office objections. Submission is noted. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed on 20.10.2014. The Registry concerned raised objections on 22.11.2014. A perusal of the daily order sheet reveals that though sufficient time was granted to comply office objections, the appellant did not comply the office objections. The appeal was listed on 29.05.2018, the Court granted a week's time as a last chance to comply office objections, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. It was also ordered that, if the cost is not paid or objections are not removed, appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 The objections were not removed. In view of peremptory order the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Accordingly, applications in I.A.Nos.1/2018 and 2/2018 were filed to condone the delay of 33 days in filing the application and to recall the order of dismissal dated:29.05.2018. The appeal was listed on 27.07.2021, on that day notice was ordered on I.A.No.1/2018. The appeal was again listed on 26.07.2022 for orders regarding furnishing of PF, C/Act, etc., to issue notice to the respondent on I.A.No.1/2018. This Court taking note of the fact that appellant had not made any efforts to pay the process to enable the office to issue notice to respondent on I.A.No.1/2018, dismissed the applications in I.A.No.1/2018 and 2/2018. Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.1/2022 was filed to recall the order dated:26.07.2022. The appeal was listed on 18.10.2022 and the Court allowed the application in I.A.No.1/2022 and recalled the order dated:26.07.2022 and directed to issue notice to the unserved respondents. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 The appeal was listed on 13.02.2024, on that day, the Court ordered that the appellant is not diligent in prosecuting the appeal and once again dismissed the applications in I.A.No.1/2018 and 2/2018 and also ordered that the order passed by this Court on 29.05.2018 becomes final. Once again, an application was filed in I.A.No.1/2024 to recall the order dated:13.02.2024. The appeal was listed on 01.03.2024 and this Court allowed the application in I.A.No.1/2024 and recalled the order dated:13.02.2024. The appeal was again listed on 14.03.2024, on that day the Court passed the following order: "ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2018 and I.A.No.2/2018 I.A.No.1/2018 is filed to condone the delay of 33 days in filing the recalling application and I.A.No.2/2018 is filed to recall the order dated 29.05.2018 dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution. Since the appeal was already admitted and there is a delay of only 33 days, this Court is of the view that the order dismissing the appeal for non- - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 prosecution has to be recalled and the appeal is to be restored. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days is condoned by allowing I.A.No.1/2018 and the order dated 29.05.2018 is recalled by allowing I.A.No.2/2018. The appeal is restored to file. List this matter on 08.04.2024 for 'final hearing'. Appellants are permitted to file paper book before 08.04.2024." Accordingly, the appeal was listed on 08.04.2024, on that day, the office was directed to list this matter on 18.04.2024 in appropriate stage. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections. Counsel Sri.P.Venkataramana., submits that the appeal is not yet admitted, however due to inadvertence in the order dated:14.03.2024 it was mentioned that the appeal was already admitted and order dated:29.05.2018 was recalled. Counsel therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:15185 RFA No. 1500 of 2014 The oral submission made by learned counsel Sri.P.Venkataramana., is placed on record. Perused the order dated:14.03.2024 and also the appeal papers with utmost care. A perusal of the daily order sheet reveals that the appeal is not yet admitted. As already noted above, the appeal is listed today for orders regarding non-compliance of office objections. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to comply office objections. This Court is not inclined to grant further time to comply office objections for the simple reason that the appeal is filed in the year 2014, now we are in the month of April 2024. The appeal is pending for almost ten years. Despite granting sufficient opportunities, the appellant has not made any efforts to comply office objections. It appears that the appellant is not diligent in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed non-compliance of office objection. Sd/- JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2