M. K.SUBRAMANI Vs. ANJANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.4.

(2.) The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the advocate who is on record on behalf of the appellant before the Trial Court has shifted his office to Yelahanka as well as Doddaballapura and the counsel also did not appear before the Trial Court and also not given any intimation to the appellant hence, the appellant also could not appear before the Trial Court and ultimately, the suit was decreed since PW1 and PW2 were not cross-examined before the Trial Court. The counsel also submits that he has produced the documents at Ex.P1 to P3 in Misc. No.416/2017 to show that the office of the advocate is shifted to Doddaballapura and the counsel also submits that the counsel who was on record also filed an affidavit before the Trial Court in this regard but the Trial Court failed to consider the same. Hence, it requires interference.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is the vendor of the appellant herein and he says no objection to the case of the appellant.