AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 204 wordsShivashankar Amarannavar, J
Learned counsel for the respondent is present.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. There is no representation on the appellant’s side. Learned counsel for the appellant was also absent on 19.12.2023, 24.01.2024 and 13.02.2024. On 13.02.2024, the Court has passed the following order;
“Sri. Srinivas R., learned counsel for the appellant, is absent.
Sri. Sudhindra Murthy V., the learned counsel for the respondent, is present.
Due to absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter could not be proceeded with.
It is borne-out from the order sheet that, this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023, in spite of absence of the counsels on both sides, has granted time and again when the matter was listed on 24.01.2024, the appellant’s counsel has remained absent and the case was adjourned, and as such, the matter is listed today. Even today there is no representation for the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, as a last chance, one more opportunity is given to the counsel for appellant to proceed with the matter.
List the matter next week.”
Considering the above aspects, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.