VENKATARAJU B. Vs. MUNIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appear in this matter either physically or through video conference. Even the Amicus Curiae, appointed for the appellant has also remained absent.

(2.) On 1/4/2021, noticing that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant for compliance of office objections, needful had not been done. This Court had ordered for issuance of Court notice to the appellant. Accordingly, as per the endorsement made by the Registry, the appellant has been served with the Court notice. The appellant is called-out, has remained absent. Thus, despite service of Court notice also, neither the appellant nor Amicus Curiae nor previous counsel for the appellant are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.

(3.) A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that this appeal is of the year 2017, till date, the appellant has not complied the office objections. Thus, it is a clear case, where the appellant is neither interested in complying the office objections nor prosecuting the matter. The Court has also taken all precautions and got issued Court notice to the appellant, despite which, there is no response.