IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18"?" DAY OF AUGUST BEFORE THE HOEWBLE MRJUSTICE ANANDA 3fj}_R. MISC.CVL.NOS.1462 & E:_46:3;2D1'0_1 MFA NO.7e34/2.002-R. I BETWEEN: SMT.ALUMELAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU C/O ANJANAPPA .. « NO.298, IV CROSS.» ' NARASIPURA _, VIDYARANYAOURA _ , 1' BANGALORE APPELLANT (BY sR1:S--R1AN.1I/AS N-I:;;_uLRARN'1,"ADv).5 AND: -- A SMT.VI3AY'ALAKSHMI' " 4. « w/O M v SU'R.YANARA_YANAA ',0 NO.39_8,. CELLOR FLOOR". " CH1K§§ARAMANAHALLI VIL.LAGE I' '*BAN'£5ALO-RE SOUTH ":"AEUK RESPON DENT (S«.'..=,RvEI3;_ _ " * I "'MISC;C\:'L§NO.1462/2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF "L1M'1'TAT'rON..,,ACTPRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 447 DAVSTIN FILING: THE APPLICATION, FOR THE REASONS STATED TH E"R.E1N,_;' ' -. II/IIStC.CVL.NO.1463/2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 VI CPC, PRAYING TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2008 IN _ 'THE. ABOVE APPEAL, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. A MISC.CVL.NOS. ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for appeliant.
2. MFA No.7634/2002 is dismissed
prosecution vide order dated 01.09.2008.
dismissal for default readsthus: V V
“Case is calied twice.V’.__ TrheVreV’–..iVVs-..V
representation. The appeal is dismissed ‘for: V
non prosecution”. v
3,. The appeilant~..ifias .filVeVd VV.iy;:sk’e.cvi.NVd.i146a/2010
to recall the order alongwith
Misc.Cvl.i\lo.14§2fgQ’10 Tgor. V¢dnd.o:~.e;eipd Vjof deiay of 447
days in.’fiVliVnVg’ for-VVV’reVcalling the order dated
o1.o9.2oosV.«r V V V V
_4._ lVV’h_avreVV.’-go’ne”‘Vthrough the affidavit filed in
iof applicatio’i”i”Vunder Section 5 of the Limitation
is sworn by S M Kuikarni, Advocate. In
the is stated that on 01.09.2008 learned
VV”~’~.__V’-Counsélcouid not be present before the Court, as he was
well. Therefore, appeai was dismissed for non
prosecution. It is further stated that learned Counsel was
suffering from Viral fever for 15 days. Therefore, he lost
the track of the case and could not file the application
within the period of limitation.
5. 1 find the affidavit filed hythe |e–af*n–eid~..Co.tjnselL’
for the appellant is hallow. There age rio.lreas,o’:n.s”ass!g..ned.e
for condonation of delay -..__{i47V”ed_a’ysV
application. Even if the mbeen
prevented on arid t..a_fip”erlod of days
thereafter, that cannot:Abe~.:a:»groVtin»d the delay
of 447 days. recall the order
dated ori of the affidavit of the
learnedlfiiounsel’»do::riot”~cau.se -sufficient cause to condone
the delayVV”of!4_47x’ dlalys’..:;Therefore, Misc.Cvl.No.1462i for
condo.nat’ion of”-i.Vdela.’y of 447 days is dismissed.
‘C’.oriseciv:_.14e-nt:.\_l;:’,”v._Misc.Cvl.No.1463/2010 filed to recall the
dimer’ dateldjh@o:.r.lo9.2oo8 is also dismissed.
Sd/-3
Judge
‘”»-_¥bgn/-