Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24765 (KAR)

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BCC) v. SIR NAGENDRA KUMAR O V

RFA/1125/2022 · 2025-01-07

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:369 RFA No. 1125 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BCC), BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR.O.V. S/O. L.VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. VENI NAGENDRA W/O SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR.O.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.186, SRI SAI NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, CT BED, THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BENGALURU-28. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER When the case is called, the appellant is not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:369 RFA No. 1125 of 2022 As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed before Registrar (P & H) and also before the Court on several dates and sufficient time was granted to comply with the office objections. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with as of today. The appeal is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections for the sixth time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient time, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the appeal is filed in the year 2022. Now we are in the month of January 2025. The appeal is pending for almost three years. As already noted above, when the case is called, the appellant is not represented. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38