$1
IN THE HIGH Comm 0}? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2911* DAY 09' JULY, 2009
BEFORE _ H %
THE }~IC}N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQK B. H1svcE§:§:c}E}§V: T'
wrm' PETITION M3123 of
BETWEEN A» . .
1. SMT. JAYAMMA.
W] O A.N. ESHWARAPPA
AGES 41 YEARS
2. SR} VIJAYKUMAR
S/O AJJ;"E$H'§{I§RA'PP;'$. M "
AGED28
3, Sm. cHANs}RA3x§I»i1\ A
mo gm. ";:=;sHwARApp2a_
AGij¥3..25 YEARS -
- _ SR: .§3H.I'JAi{1JMA'R2V' """ " 'V
A $v,t«:_>% A,N;,ESHWARAPI3'A
iittixéi. Rsgfisziwanx,
_ om gm. gsnwamppa
V AGE!) 19:. YEARS
5]" .¥s:i;REs1s1NG 0+9 C/O SAGANAPPA,
'%1m*:':). AVA on me. HOSPITAL
GHIKMA(}ALUR OBEDULLA GUJARI (BESIDE)
..-3RI> moss, SHANKARAPURA
CHIKMAGALUR -- 577 I01.
PETITIUNERS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, ABVOCATE)
AND
1. NAGARAJA
310 Mi, ESHWARAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
2. SMT. GEETHA
D10 AN. ESHWARAPPA
AGE!) 23 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT WARD-No,??*, '
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, M;§RA'S?'AN_JI;ROAD',~~._'j» ..
KABUR TOWN.' KA_I)UP: 'TAL:.1{E£, ' "
CHIKMAGALUR ';;2;3rRz.(:11 -4:377' w--1*.~'
~ ., RESPONDENTS
1111 H (8? ‘SM; M, c:..,J_a_YAH1}2f;j;a.i. ADVOCATES)
THIS “G1RI.’_I’- PETiPI{)N’ISa_FiLED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 0;-* THE “coNs’nTuTiQN-09.. 4129:9121 ?RAYING T0 QUASH THE
ORDER m.1o.12.2oo7; Passsa BY THE PRL. DISTRICF JUDGE,
CHIKMAGALUR EN ‘I°.dA’ _(P’~._6a$”SC) 5×07, AND PRODUCED AS
ANNEX-H,’ ~ _
. -*;fH’IsxwA:§rr””PErrr@§*comma an ma ORDERS THIS DAY,
CULIRT ms; Xramowrm:
9_.B_IZ_E_E
Jayagamm, the learned counsel ur1dertakt::s tr) file
‘;.:{za.ka*f!V’at the respondent No.2 also. Although the matter is
. __f0r orders, it is taken up for final disposal with the
« ‘VAAVC31i sent of both the learned advocates.
Ggfifii
2. The petitionmfs have raised the
order, dt. 10. 12.2007 passed by tlarfr ‘Cm3.r§:
District Judge, Chikmagalur in " 3. The facts of the __b1V"ief Sri A.N.Eshwarppa passed A H The fixst
petitioner is his wife, are his sons
and the am and They filed P
& s.c No.6/2Qd5k%p%::yfix§%g of the certificate in
favour of the Indian Succession Act,
1925. The ‘ for the issuaxme of the
said C€:I’fi;fiCa’J.t éhcxe are no respondants. The
was published in Jilla Suddi Madhyama
Nobody appeared in response in the
n<:$ii::e."~–':A. "'*I"i1e Civil Judge (Srf 1311.), by his order,
' 1G,.2G(55 allowed tha petition by wanting the Succession
the first petitioner. it states that it is issued an
'T of all the petitioners to cnable her to rewive the
payable £0 Sri A.N.EshWarappa.
4. The respondents hemin filed
ms/2007 before the Court ..J».iqg¢;.
Chikmagalm’ and prayed for setfiné’-asid¢..’.c:f .
(111.19. 10.2005. In the said filed
the applicatidn for the Idtzlay dd] “xt.11e omce
raising the objecfien is not
accompanied by cdzddonafion of delay.
Thcreafiter the for the eondonation
of delay. bdwifis order, dt. 10.12.2007
allowed the I.A there was no delay in filing
tha apps:-.E;–v eyed that them was 2 months
that are bona fidc reasens to
Vt11§5:d and Thus the delay was ccandoned.
dorder condonirlg the delay, this petition is
M ”
“E§fi1t.Namit11a Mahesh, the learned cmmsel appearm g
V , _ ” tiad petitioners submits that although the Sl}.C.CfiISSi0I1
da”‘vC’é:i’tificatc was ordered ‘[0 lm issued on 19.10.2085, the
appeal is filed on 86.02.2006. That is a delay of 4 months in
Qfiéé
filing the apmal. Worst of all, she contends that the appeal
memerandum was net accompanied by any app1ieati駧r1e.for
the cendonation of delay. She submits that
doubt that subsequently delay contionatien –.
to be filed, but it does not explairt eeoseaaay
date czaf filing the appeal til} theriafce of t?1’e ‘%’ ;
for the cendenation of delay.
6. Sri Jayak1’rthi, ._ eetmsel for the
respondenta _’ cendonation of delay is
procedm~a1. ‘ once mi is given to remedy the
defect of 1;1i)i; L-‘1.e a’ppiScation fer the eendonation of delay
availed of the opportunity and filed
the A thereafizer it cannot be held that the
VV1:; eeeponde11tsv*..’:hafie net remeved, remedied or rect1:fi’ ed the
_ fiefeet; II; siippori; 91′ his submissions, he relies on a Division
of this Court in the ease of S’1’A’I’.E OF
v. NAGAPPA, reported in me 1985(2) mm
The relevant portien of the said judgnmt is extracted
hereinbelaw: 83%.
“I3.” Even the Legisfaiive hisfiary of sub-rgzfai’ A’
to whidzfiwe have adverted. does not indiazte thgit %
rules (1) and (2) cf Rule am insefledin 4ihe_’..’:zzréVfe. _
intended to award the penalty of digmissqz ofg}z.fip;§€:j::’~_. T, T
in {he event of nan~mmpIianx;:e’ uriih”t?té–.require§mAén2″af
sub-mle (1) by an appellani pféaenfifiga
appeal Qhus, when the ggmrgsszyfinor
oonieucualfy an
appellant presenting a, as a
penarty, entaii c;z’ir;r(tissr2i”‘£)f’.?§js it rather
diam: to about
impfiedfy f£ i3 ra3oi”s:»z1.so open to us to
cx)nsiméM’d “Qf intended to aid in
the irnplying the award
on :2 “its” if we have
regard in béarféaid by the Supreme Court as
to “cf reqzired of a Court in
‘V a procedural rule.
‘ 1-:4, V}:§%%1:.Séngxa:nT’V ” Sing}; vs. Election mbunal, ii is
“.’i’a:);;: a ofprocedure must be regarded :25 such. It
j ” .AAi;::.._£p§’vcedz;re’, sornething designed to fadfitate justice
dad fizrther its ends not :1 penal enactment for
‘ ‘”punish1rn,er:,£ and pemzltiesg not at thing designed to trip
peopfe up. Too techmhaf :1 cranstrmriion of Sections that
leaves rm momfor reasonable elcrstidiy cf i1tterp:etc:g!id}’:=.<_:»T~.._
shmdd therefore be gmzrded against azvrovidecl ;_ " .
thatjustice is done to 'both' sides) last the vmy,gneans%%
designed for the fiutherance of _j11s,tiQe
fiusfrate it. *
?'. Sr} Jayakirthi submits mplayad V
by the petitioners both on the Vféfivmondczlts.
He brings to my notice an the petitioner
No.1, the respondg%rit'j::j[I$fQs5 ":'::1-$3' Kavitha (another
daughter Section 125 of the
(3r.1P.C –.Vg?§:;'I$%.VE$hwa1'appa fer majntenanme
sf Rs.2,{}{&}f}/~ firsst petitioner statcs that the
of the first petitioner and
made such an application in the
the pefitioner N9. 1 has chesen not 1:0
_ ,'.j'§;;1A1gj1ea;d t1i(:§._. 'I'{':SpDI}(Z1fi1"}t Nos. 1 and 2 in the P 85 S.C
It is his specific giexvancct that Succession
€'.}:t:1;tifi.(;;ats is Qbtained behind the back of responclazrtt Nos. 1
2. He also submits that Suddi Madhyama has no
wide cimulatien in the locality and that is why :
unrneticed by the respondents.
8. In the course of her rsjoindeic,
submits that the respondents Iii’) }_va.yVTVrcléa1f:ét’}~V~’€£) Sri” ‘
A. N. Eshwarappa.
9. My mading Aaf the fiizveals that the
raspendents me the prescribed
lixnitatinn ” filfi date at’ knowledge of
” 4 IS
‘ ‘Gate. The demand that each
passing of tht2,__S’t1C{3€3§*3:’.§iA:(:).Ij L’
day’5 dehfay Vt<::v cxgplz-fined appears ten be pedantic in
hype;-techmcal appraach finstrates and
sf justice. The Division Bench
T' r«3iiéd."f"bAy Sri Jaya kirthi is of greaé: assistance in
' thé"E:enmt)versy in question. The appeal cannet be
fin the guund of not fling of the delay condenatian
V , _ VTa;§;:5iica4;h'on at the time of the instritutsion of the appeal. As the
which is chaflenged hem is reasoned and W6}!-
considemd, I refuse 1:9 interfe the matter. Whethcr the
s =–
respondents are related to A.N.lE3shwarappa
petitioners have played the fiwaud c)n:-‘é:iir:~’*{1c)A1i1’j’£ is ‘
be dcciéed by the District Judge; on Tr::e%+.r;e
pending mnsideration.
10. Pefifion is disInisscfi._ A Ho «:;rdér’L’£=-5:9 costs.
J i ‘E Fudge
bvr