Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 304 (KAR)

Annamma And Others v. Revamma And Others

2020-02-03

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.S.A.No.2247/2005, who is for respondent No.1 in R.S.A. Crob.No.7/2006 alone present. Learned counsel for caveator/respondent in R.S.A.No.2247/2005 who is for the cross objector in R.S.A.Crob.No.7/2006 is absent. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants in the appeal who is present submits that, despite this Court granting several adjournments and sufficient time to enable the parties to report settlement said to have been arrived at by them, the appellants in R.S.A.No.2247/2005 are not coming forward to sign the memorandum of settlement despite making hectic efforts in getting them to sign the necessary papers. Submitting so, learned counsel who is present today, states that he has no other option but to accept the order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. A perusal of the order sheet maintained in the appeal and the cross objection would go to show that in R.S.A.No.2247/2005 c/w. R.S.A. Crob.7/2006, on 12-06-2012, one week time was finally granted for the appellants to do the needful, making it clear that in case of default the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. The said order dated 12-06-2012 came to be recalled by allowing I.A.No.1/2012 on 06-09-2012 by this Court. Subsequently, several adjournments came to be granted in both these matters on several occasions without there being any progress in the matter. 5. Thereafter, on 05-09-2018, it is recorded that both the learned counsels submitted that there is an element of settlement of the case considering the relationship among the parties. As such, at their request, the matter was referred to Mediation for mediating the matter. However, the mediation could not succeed, as such, the appeal with the cross objection continued before this Court. 6. Thereafter, on 07-01-2019, 29-05-2019, 12-06-2019, 19-06-2019 and 26-06-2019, the matter was adjourned for reporting settlement. 7. On 20-09-2019, the learned counsels from both side repeated the same submission that there is likelihood of settlement in the matter and that they would file a memo in that regard reporting settlement. As such, the matter was once again adjourned and listed on 15-10-2019. On that day, no progress was achieved. 8. Thereafter on 21-01-2020, the matter came up before this Court when the Court made the following observation:- 'Learned counsel for the appellants alone present. None appear for the respondent. As such, the matter was once again adjourned and listed on 15-10-2019. On that day, no progress was achieved. 8. Thereafter on 21-01-2020, the matter came up before this Court when the Court made the following observation:- 'Learned counsel for the appellants alone present. None appear for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants while repeating the submission that has been made by both side on the previous several occasions that there will be settlement between the parties, once again submits that parties have finalised the matter and to report the settlement finally and to put an end to this litigation, they require a weeks accommodation. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in this appeal of the year 2005, several and sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the parties either to report settlement or to address their arguments. Couple of such observation was made on 12.6.2019, 19.6.2019 and 26.6.2019. Thereafter also on 23.8.2019 and 20.9.2019, considering the similar submission, adjournments were granted. In this background, though submission made today need not be given due weightage and the matter can be proceeded further, however, considering the request made by the learned counsel, as a final last opportunity, a weeks time is granted for both side either to report the settlement or to proceed further in this matter. List this matter on 27.01.2020 as prayed.' 9. Thereafter, once again, the matter came up on 27-01-2020 when this Court made the following observation:- 'Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has been finally settled and memo of settlement is also been drafted. However, to subscribe his signature the appellant who is away from the station is not available, for which he requires three days accommodation. Making it once again clear that no further adjournment would be granted in this matter, if the matter is not proceeded with in either way, as a last chance three days accommodation as prayed is granted. List this matter on 03.02.2020.' 10. It is now when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for appellants expressed his helplessness in securing the parties and reporting settlement which they have arrived at already. 11. List this matter on 03.02.2020.' 10. It is now when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for appellants expressed his helplessness in securing the parties and reporting settlement which they have arrived at already. 11. The above observations make it very clear that in this appeal of the year 2005 and cross objection of the year 2006, for more than thirteen to fourteen years, the parties have been given several adjournments and sufficient time only to enable them to settle the matter as desired and report settlement. Despite the same, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants today, the parties have neither signed the settlement documents which were prepared at their instance nor have they given any instructions to the learned counsel to proceed further in this matter, keeping the alleged settlement aside. In that situation, learned counsel for the appellants has expressed his inability to proceed further in the matter. 12. I am of the view that considering the age of the appeal, more particularly, sufficient number of adjournments granted to the appellants to proceed further in this matter, which the appellants have not made use of, and not even evincing any interest to prosecute the matter, I have no other option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. With respect to Cross Objection No.7/2006 also, the same reasons apply, because, both the appeal as well as cross objection are sailing together. Learned counsel for the cross objector is, however, absent today. Even the cross objector also in the guise of the alleged settlement is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the appeal. As such, I have no hesitation in dismissing both the appeal and the cross objection also for none prosecution. Accordingly, both R.S.A.No.2247/2005 and RSA Crob.No.7/2006 in R.S.A.No.2247/2005 stand dismissed for non-prosecution.