M S Manjunath vs S S Putte Gowda

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 27, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1881582

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1881582
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: M G UMA
Decided On: Sep 27, 2024
Case Number: CRL.A/813/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M S Manjunath

Respondent

S S Putte Gowda

Excerpt

.....by allowing this appeal. -2- this appeal coming on for orders this day,judgment was delivered therein as under:coram: hon'ble mrs justice m g umaoral judgmentthe learned counsel for the appellant is absent. no representation even though the matter is passed over twice.order sheet dated 04.09.2023, reads as under:“ appellant and counsel is absent.this appeal is filed against the dismissal of compliant for non-prosecution passed by the trial court. time has been granted since from the date of filing this appeal before this court for compliance of office objections. however, in spite of giving such opportunities, the appellant has not shown any interest in complying the office objections. however, one more opportunity is given as last chance subject to payment of cost of rs.1,000/- payable to the legal services authority of this court within a period of one week from today, failing which, further orders will follow. -3-list the matter next week.” inspite of that, there is neither representation nor compliance of the order as referred above by depositing the cost. the office objections are not complied with even though the matter is passed over twice. it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. hence, appeal is dismissed. sd/- (m g uma) judge rhs list no.: 1 sl no.: 44

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. M.S.MANJUNATH S/O SOMBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/T MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK-573116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALI PATIL D.S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND:
1. S.S.PUTTE GOWDA S/O SUNKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M              R/AT SHAMBUNATHAPURA,
Location: HIGH           ANKANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
COURT OF                 ARAKALGUD TALUK,
KARNATAKA                HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.
…RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHENNARAYAPATNA IN C.C.NO.820/2018 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINANT FOR NON PROSECUTION ON 02.02.2019 AND RESTORE THE SAME ON FILE AND PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO PROSECUTE THE COMPLAINT ON MERITS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. -2- THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant is absent. No representation even though the matter is passed over twice.

Order sheet dated 04.09.2023, reads as under:

“ Appellant and counsel is absent.

This appeal is filed against the dismissal of compliant for non-prosecution passed by the Trial Court. Time has been granted since from the date of filing this appeal before this Court for compliance of office objections. However, in spite of giving such opportunities, the appellant has not shown any interest in complying the office objections. However, one more opportunity is given as last chance subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to the Legal Services Authority of this Court within a period of one week from today, failing which, further orders will follow. -3-

List the matter next week.” Inspite of that, there is neither representation nor compliance of the order as referred above by depositing the cost. The office objections are not complied with even though the matter is passed over twice. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2024 Same Parties M S Manjunath vs S S Putte Gowda Same Judge M G UMA