High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Jayanthi vs Smt Vasanthi Bangera on 21 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayanthi vs Smt Vasanthi Bangera on 21 April, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL::;§RE

DA'I'ED THES THE 2 wt my OF' APRIL 2cm.'  L' 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE) MR. JUSTEAE»:If3;S.'E?A'3'§fi;_':   n

WRIT PETITION NO.1Q8156/2C09(GfiA.-.V¢PC)

BETWEEN :

1.

Smtdayanthi, ._ $ _ 
W/0.Mr.Shivananda,,  A
A866 58 years;   .  V
R/at Bankgzrliatta,  _ 
Kidiyoor, éijduffig  .. U '

Bhaskar..Ka1méiaiy,   
S / o:_Latc_ §{1'i;3hn§ap1;a 'Pp_oj_a1_-y,
Aged".abQ1:i:   .
R/a.t K.a}.m,ady._0f«. _ 
Kadavmi ,v'111age., 2

ucaupi,   

. 

Sfo.’Lata’ ‘iéxishnappa Poojaxy,

“‘ ._ ‘2’§.ged’vb0§1i»5-4:”‘years,

at Baxiirérkatta Kidiyoor,

Uziupj. “i’-a;i1.11<; and District.

; .Smt.Sumathi Sridhar,

– _ . _Wf<3.M.D.Sfidh:ar,
Aged 52 years,

R] at Malpe,

' Uc1upi'.I'a1uk & District.

Shri. Suéhakar,
S / .Latc Kfishnagrpa pooj ary ,

Aged about “:30 years,
R] at Kalrnaciy of
Kadavoor Viiiage,
Uéupi Taluk 83 fiistrict.

6. Sh1’i.Diva§{ara, .

S / 0.La1:e Krishnappa
Aged about 46 years,

R/at Kalmady of

Kaciavoor Village, *~
UdupiTa,1u1< <32. Distxict.

7. Smt.{}eetl:1a M.,

W/0. Mahendra Bejusc, A
Aged about 42 years,» _ V
R/o.Amma’§:’.$i_tate;;_ _ ‘
}E3i11d0or,..I>iCuI:iyiia;p’ur« fa V

Taiuk as [)j;$tri£:{;._ A MPETITZGNERS

[1337M/:S..A.i§fgV’aé’afi’£h 8;’Ic§.i<.Gi.rish, Advs.,)
AND _ . . ..

1. S.*3t.Va;$éLw:§tffi.}j3a§1gé$i%1,

/ oliate Sazéjtg-:32. Bangera,
“A_ge’c’£ =60 years,

~ “I?:t:-Séntly /at Kalmadi village,
ildupi Taluk.

2; S.Ka1mady,

W] <:i.3vIr.Sadas11iva Kalmady,
T Aged 48 years,

V» PIfese:{1tiy R/at Sahyaciri
' *-Society -18, G-Block,
; Chinchwad MIDC,

P1m€:–411 019.

Bath are represented
By their Attorney,

-4.

C¥.S.1’€0.i53/ 199′? an 1′?.02.2006. It is seen fI*<)I;:§1':..:t:1?:<;=,V

materials on record mat the Sliit was dism.issed'_WfCT«' _

prcmecuticn as the p1aintifTs–responq§:flts mg): u

leaci their evidence and sotight tii}::;(*: whjén 'the. é;11.it'§v._asA::VT_A

listed before the Court on 17tr:'£~*e,§:ar1;"e;r;é%L2:30c;{ '

2. In the Mi3ce}}ia;1eo’Li§ fiiéd was
cxmtsnded that the not be
present befere 2006 as he
was prevenfééi duti to Traffic
Jam. this explanation
and I1a§x”a:4J!Iéfition is ffieci.

learrzed counse} appéaring for

‘Atififl .§§::1s§é-..§)erused the materials on record. It is

_ true ‘i:.1*1e suit of the year 1997 and the matter was far

fi_rst”t1i1;e listeé for evidsnm cf the plaintiff on 20111

2096. it is also disclosed from the {)I’d€}T’ sheet

VT : _ ‘mafin£ai11ed in the suit. that on 17$ Febtmary 12006, the

3 matter was posted for plai111:ifi”s evidénce and the

-5-

piaintiffs sought for time. Having due regere t0 the fact
that the suit was of the year 199′? , the plaintiff ought to

have gone on with the evidence witheut seeki11g7..

further time in the matter. However, the fae’:”‘refi:f.i1§:;

that evidence eeuld not be led Wen «the; u

inconvenience to which the eouxzeel fer..fi1e..p’1ainti)i”ZF§.a%a:eVe AA

put. In such cireumstancee, ‘djemie~saii of was >

not eailed for. Therefore, the__4_t:C:§:1;–‘.t_ be1e:§%_:vZ.’1aef%right3y
held that the suit t<;§_' tie"-.ije:spiqred en file by
setting aside t.he=e;'der-1.ef'dism'is§sa1'.A..1':Ic§§éei§;er, the Court

be-low }::;as~.x1ot.V or "the realities of the situation

whiie awaieitig eff 125.500/–. It has to be

A borrge t;-';v.at___the defendants have been made to

:iefe:;1:fi –.t1*1eir».eVeaese for the last seven years and are new

upon te defezad themselves afresh after

I *;he etttittie feeteped. This hardship, the defenéant is put

V' 85, 'thee be properiy Compensated.

4». In these cjremnstanees, I am of the View that

Whjie restemfien of the euit; cannot be interfered with,

Cost awarded requires to be increased and fixed at
a