Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25415 (KAR)

K MALLESHA v. PRASANNAKUMAR M N

MFA/3550/2017 · 2025-06-12

C M Poonacha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20193 MFA No. 3550 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3550 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: K MALLESHA S/O KENGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BILAGULI ROAD, RAMANATHAPURA TOWN, RAMANATAHAPURA, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NINGARAJA M N, ADVOCATE(ABSENT)) AND: 1. PRASANNAKUMAR M N S/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MOKALI VILLAGE, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573102. 2. THE DEPOT MANGER KSRTC RAMANATHAPURA DEPOT, RAMANATHAPURA, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573102. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN 573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B P RADHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.249/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20193 MFA No. 3550 of 2017 MEMBER MACT ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Court vide order dated 25.1.2018, ordered for issuance of notice to respondents on I.A.1/2017. Since requisite process fee was not paid, this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023, ordered to list the matter for dismissal on 29.11.2023. On 29.11.2023, this Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the needful has been done. However, it is noticed that despite the submission that was made by the learned counsel for the appellant needful has been done, requisite process fee has not bee paid. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 2. Hence, the above appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7