High Court Karnataka High Court

G S Nanjundaiah vs P S Anand on 11 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
G S Nanjundaiah vs P S Anand on 11 December, 2009
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.  _

DATED THIS THE 1 W DAY OF OEcL:Mj3E:R';~:f20o9  " = A 

BEFORE j; " V
THE HONBLE MR. JL.?S~.T'.ICEAS.
R.F'.A.  QF QOOOVVO  
BETWEEN» '    

G.S.NANJUNDAlAH,  .
SINCE DEAD_BY__HIS'"""'  _  - 
LEGAL RE}?-Rr3;s_gNTAT1vEv~  _'  A 

SMT. O.r-=11. O.:'R1JAMBA;-Ai';j   
w1FE__OF  RAMAS'NANLA..I_AHV..5
PRE.SEN'1"I.Y5.RES'f1DIN'G._AT _ 
2203/O, ;;3RI-5.cROAss';A._TV  - -
BANASHANKARI 11. STAGE,
BANGALORE --"»56'O'o.7O;

 " _    APPELLANT
{BY SR1 ABH;NAv R.. {ABSENT}
HOAR EM/S, KUMAR-3: KUMAR. ADVOCATES)

" PIS'. ANAiSfDf'

SON OF' LATE P. SUBBARAYA SHETTY.
HINDU,

 O MAJOR. NO632.

SAMPIOE ROAD.

'MAL1.EswARAM.

 '§BA1\IGAI.ORE --- 560 003.

RESPONDENT

” (BY SR1 BASAVA PRABHU s. PATH. &

SR1 D.L.N. RAO. ADVOCATES]

“”‘”‘l

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 19.8.2000 IN
0S.NO.2692/81 ON THE FILE OF’ THE XI ADm..c1TY ‘CIVIL

_ JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING TEE j1’«’oR_
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

This appeal is coming ondlorlliieaiting the it

Court delivered the following: g

This matter is it hearing
continuously from Every time, when
the matter reached was sought or
nobody in the matter. On
8.1212009′ dismissed, before the same was
recordedgirl order”:slieetfaDpellant’s counsel appeared and

sought. for ‘reostoration and accordingly, it was restored.

312.2009 when the matter was called in the

. 1nornin”g«.vvsessi.on, the same submission was made that the

counssel’ i.s.3’held up in another case, it was also submitted

that.’ since his name is not shown along with firm name

‘M/ls.Kumar and Kumar he had difficulty to make out

iwhether the case was being conducted by him. Hence

specific order was passed to show the name of Sri.AbhinaV R

along with M/s. Kumar and Kumar and the matter was

“*7

adjourned to 11.12.2009. On 11.12.2009 when the”-matter

was called in the morning session a request _.wa’s_ri2a;de’ to

pass over the matter. Thereafter, when it””x2sl’asiv’_iea1led-opt’

second time, there was no reprezsemhtatioril. .;’l’his’attit’u’de”‘.of it

the counsel for the appellant is L

posting case from 25.11.09 *t.il”1,,1;oda$;,n.Q:1,Of1e other
ground the counsel is seekiiigfa€ij.ournriie’t1t.”V There is
absolutely no reason to lieepthiis __rna1_ter=pending. Hence,

the appeal is diislnisse-jci for’1f_on_ preseeu’tion.