3 RsA.Nr:s.1:3:2e96
§N THE HIGH COURT ore' 1"E?adsavaii,
" _ '*z*q.--»A_;and,
" Dist: Gulbarga
T _,N¢W at Muddadg',
Tq: Aland --5'23 101.
. .RE8P(!§I)EN'T
2 RSA.l\§().i 1312006
This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
Judgment and Decree dt.2.l2.20{)5 passed can-_ LA;
U.R.N.__/2005 an the file of the Civil Judgt;~--(.$r..D'I1}»'*A3a_nd;b
dismissing the application filed 11] of the: Li3:aitaf.ion' Asst for T
C13 in filing the appeal and consequently ordexjng ia"v-lfilai the '
agpeal memo against the Judgtmentazgd' Decree dt.
passad in O.S.N0.168/2003 O11-the of t11eAddl.VCiViI§Judgé.
{Jr.£}n) av. JMFC, Aland. V" V ' ~ l "
This apgcal coming on fox ti1iS'd..ay.,-- like Court
delivered the foilowifigf ' .. f
This appfiél "élga:§:1$t"'t'%1a--«;ludgment and Decree:
{SI';l._"5ii),Vfl Aland. By the impuged
judg,mmVtitAt'1:.e has dismissed the Appeal
as barred l application filed by the appellant
r clindvenafion of delay vi' 186 days in preferring
l7 "dismissed.
l."""'«.__V"r§js.pon{f1::3f::A{t is the wife. The respondent Smt.A1nbawwa filed a
0.S.No.168/2003 sccldng award of maintenance. It was
V. .§:§:i1tendec1 by hear that she was legally wedded wife of defendant
‘4 (appellant herein) and that her marriage was celebrated with
‘ appellant herein is the husband and the
the defendant 25 years back. It was fiuther alfieged that the
\.,/
3 RSJ%.kN0.ll3v’2006
defendant-husband had contracted second marriage with ‘~.e ne
Mahadevi of Nimbarga village anti as a xesuit, .
started residing in her parental house. these ‘shoe ” ” *
sought for a judgment and decree for 1j:;ain1e:;.§1ie*e’iI;V’e 0.5} A
Rs.3{}OO/ – per month from the date-9.f sueiie its
appellant herein though mpmsenteel a not
file Written statement. ‘ eeuxt after
recording evidence the suit ex};-arte,
homing that t}1e_” “fru’.:« maintenance of
Rs. 3,560/-g”‘g;:¥ meixfih mg; theéefenéant shall be liable to
pay this the date of suit. It is also
ordered that he a charge on the promrty
defeifiiaat—«bemmg No.14/4/1AA measuring 7
‘ —_
by this judgment and decree the appellant
ggfireferred are xbeiated appeal along with an application seeking
of delay. There was 186 days éelay in preferring
‘ appeal. In the affidavit flied in suppoxt of the application fer
V _ eoeeenafion of delay, the appellant contended that his Advocate
at Aland did not communicate to hire about the progress in the
e
6 R.SA.NO. 1 1312006
against the Advocate in the absence of acceptable inatcnial
cannat be made basis far condoning the deI:%1yf.¢.._ ”
explanation is ofiemti by the defendant for %
except making certain 1:1;:funda.’i”A’Vs;”E}Lega’t;ioL3s§ gigéinét Bilge 9 T
Advocate. in such circumstances, it;
the matter in exercise of its ufulcr’ CFC;
There is no illegality, §¢t aiogaa _ or éppamfit iflegaiity
resulting in failure of for interference.
Hemce this appca§Vi3__dismi§g9_§i? Sd/._
i AAAA “7f kV’ {%% “” Judge
DKB