Court’s affirmation of procedural strictness under the CPC: non-compliance with process-fee obligations warrants dismissal
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RFA No. 1693 of 2023 of Sri. Kanteppa Tengli Vs Sri Sridhar Dhanashri |
| CNR | KAHC010441232023 |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr Justice V Srishananda |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for non-prosecution |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure Code (Section 96 CPC) |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that non-payment of process fee and failure to appear after sufficient time for compliance amounts to non-prosecution, warranting dismissal of the appeal. |
| Citations | NC: 2024:KHC:37717 |
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appeal was filed under Section 96 CPC against a money-decree, requiring payment of process fee for issuance of notice.
- The Court granted sufficient time for the appellant to pay the fee.
- The appellant neither paid the process fee nor appeared on the hearing date.
- In view of non-compliance and non-appearance, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
- The defendant in a money-recovery suit (OS No. 6344/2021) filed RFA No. 1693/2023 under Section 96 CPC.
- Despite being granted time, the appellant failed to pay the process fee necessary for service of notice on the respondent.
- On the day of hearing, there was no representation, leading the Court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 96 CPC empowers an aggrieved party to appeal from an original decree.
- Payment of process fee is a mandatory procedural requirement before notice can issue.
- Non-compliance with this requirement, coupled with non-appearance, justifies dismissal for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – affirming the established practice of dismissing appeals for non-prosecution when process-fee requirements under the CPC are not met.
Citations
- NC: 2024:KHC:37717 (High Court of Karnataka)
- RFA No. 1693/2023