Kodandarama vs B.N. Jayadeva and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Learned Counsel, who was appearing for the appellant, filed a memo for retirement duly acknowledged by the appellant, dated 8-3-2013 and would reiterate the circumstance that he has already retired from the case though his name is shown in the cause title. Learned Counsel is permitted to retire. The appeal having been called out, no representation on behalf of the appellant is made.

Learned Counsel for the respondent 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposes any further adjournments and would submit that the appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the settled legal proposition as laid down in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Ramesh Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and Another, and would submit that the case on hand is squarely covered by the said decision, as the appellant is also an auction purchaser, who had merely deposited 25% of the price and thereafter had abandoned the proceedings while seeking to litigate earlier by way of a writ petition and then by a suit and the suit having been dismissed, the present appeal is filed. Therefore, the auction purchaser fails to deposit further amount after having deposited initial 25% of the amount and the amount would stand forfeited and the auction purchaser loses all rights to demand sale in favour of the purchaser. Therefore, would submit that the appeal be dismissed.

The appeal, however, is dismissed for non-prosecution.