IN THE }I'I€IH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.'R.P.N0,,13GS OF 3004
.1.
Ill 1111
I I: r'I"i"_' E35' 'fi?('2FKilfiiII'J'|TIIKA' RT§lII'Il"t"3A*I.¢-735 ; --.
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 ' 7I"If ~..
BEFORE
ms I-lON'BLE MR. Jusncz .H.A#<.PAT#_LI 5 % I
C.R.P.N0. 1355 OF 2oc4.*;II9j '
BETWEEN I .
1 VASUDEV
-3!!) I'.I.*.E.4.YA!'IAR.%... .".'IUmIUG' 'DEE-
OCC: SERVICE 'I
RIO NEAR. IUI..B.MAGAR
DHARWAD
% V _ pfinfuoweaj
{Ev Sri : SHRIHARSHIIA I) I
AND :
1 YALLAPPA. I , "
SIG RAMAPPA Anuuesnafi 6D..YE.\RS
occ; PENSIOIIER * . =
SAPTAPUR * . *
DH.AR'WAD'
RESPONDENT
I.(BytSrI:I J NEQRALGI ADVOCATE )
I ‘1-its-. C.E.I5;’ IS’II:F!LE_
., 1.15 QF QPL3 AGAINST ‘!’I-IE
I ‘ «REGIME EPPEALIAS BARRED av LIMITATION.
‘ U! …..I”‘E.R DT.
3.7.04 PA$SED’0N’vIA.NO.l IN RA-NO.’I32I’O3 ON THE FILE’-OF THE III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN._) 8: CJM, DHARWAD,’ DISMISSING IA.N_O.I FILED’BY
” ” –« iV”V-TI-IE~PETITI0NER HEREIN UIS 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT RAN SEC. 151 OF
. GPQ TOCQNDQNE THE DELAY IN FILING THE RA AND DISMISSING ‘THE
THIS CR. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
THE cm! I n\Iumn-
I’ id!-I.-n\JI’Vll ‘WI:
. AL -__= (3=!1J’:1iQ,!31§2i OF
-nnm:n-
The instant revision petition filed by petitiom§Vr:’*i_.
arising out of the order dated 3.7.2004 passe’ df
l._A.No.l in R.A. No.132I2003 by the learned m.dldit;a§jgl1i«sV% it
5?!
R.A.No.132_I2 3 to the Trial conifer fresThV. on
merits of the case, in the interest and
2. The rievenoe _f.. instant
revision petition: by the
judgment end I Additional Civil
Judge (Jr;.Dn) ‘end’Vv.jM:l=Q;”Vli):harviad in 0.S.No.277I2000
had fits. a !~.|o.13?.!20″…3 were the li.
Atiditicmsciivii Jtid’ge…{Sr.Dn) and cm, Dharwad. Aiong
iwifl1.ih%essseidlReguI%ar Appeal, petitioner has filed LA. No.|
under Limitation Act, red with section 151 of
5-we .n._ _;-_*u….__ _.u_- ..|-:._….
FL; I. Coll KJKJIIB NIB Ufllfly
I The said” application had come up for
‘jj’1eon!§ideration before the l.._ower Appellate Court on 3″‘
/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R.P.NO.l365 OF 2004
l…J.u.. [Du I”\..\ n. A (‘I __…’r,..l ” …d .._. UL _’
IV IJUUQU ‘OLLJIU ill Ll \JdWl L«JIIilI_l EU E In! I 9 lfllf UK N.
W HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. C.R.P.NO.l365 OF $8104
A
.3.
Juiy IZGFJ4. The Lower Appellate Court, after hearing
sides and after considering the explanation offered ”
petitioner in the affidavit filed for eondening 1 i
not accepted the ‘it'[;’)ii’li”I.’fi(‘1Ifi ‘tfe_redIby :pat.itiener.’on”the’_ 7
ground that, the eeid delay has got eatiefapfgdmy: 1.
explained by him and they_’explanetion in
the f.fide-it does no. of the court
on the ground thot?_:w.pgtifiong,y. of the
Maleprabha a Clerk has
regulrly ibis except the leeve
period an ‘no’ eet%etl”f’*~tery,_erfiehefion rvroenoe is
produced ‘Vbyhimd’ to the delay. The Lower
ettel””‘ettol’ding opportunity to both the
peitieee. lend’~.._efter.y:’.1eoneidering the relevant materials
“at-vaiiebie orgvhee opined that, the delay explained by
” petitioner hot satisfactorily and the same has been
by him in a very casual and general rnenner_
T e,rjt_i;” related the eeid em’-lioe.Le:’: by eseignirm 6″””‘i’it
IN THE HIGH CQLIRT OF K.i°t…!\!;A.T.i*.!.5..’.. AT PA}.'(.’ALORa’.. C.R.P.}$. 1365
22.
5%
reeeene in pre% e. …e cider. Beir” aggrivau by
impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate A. V.
referred above, petitioner herein felt K
present this revision petition.
.__l
3. i have heard ieerneu. _eeuneei”*eppegt.in§ for}
petitioner. After careful perueai”i6f.:._titeV
passed by the Lower A,npaiiata I.A.tit.e.l in
RA Nt_111i|?_l.20f_)2, I de na. ensign; taps. -‘ti less
” ‘teriei inwuiefij, in rejecting the
application titan patitipnaifiar ppnnpnhg the delay in
filing the staid-.appeei_:… Appellate court, after
critim! eveiuatittn ‘3fVfi’13A’.r3§’Varlt rrrt”ieie eveiiebie on
Zfiihetv anti’ inte”‘ceneideration the conduct of the
pannpnai enri’the::etetement made by him in the affidavit
=……vand by,1.Eeesigpn’in;fiiE:ogent reasons in pare-3 ef the erder
. j’.-‘.3~’L”_’_””i’.’ii’§”fiii’y’ .f’f’Tifi§ that, tine greuna’ taken by petitioner
4j*–‘«’.V’fer:’:epntitit1ing tha inordinate delay of 193 days is the ill-
i hash of his child stating that his child is suffering from
/44..
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R.P.NO.!365 OF 2004
IN ‘I’HE HIGH czomrr or KARNATAKA xr nmcmone. C.R.P.N0.l36$ our 2004
-5-
illness and his presence was required at that time and
opined t_h__t, petitioners child was no where tratsoiy
an indoor patient and the medical certificates
sworn in the affidavit filed along with
trustworthy and the said statement
and nothing but a frame’ pet’Itiensr.e
the Lower Appellate Court-h_as Wat.
the judgment was on 29.10.2002 and ed.-n% for the first time the 9.11 what
was the 2 ‘petitioner to know the
oonsequenohwliof is not stated in his
— …._.–. u u IIII Ia
vit,_i’ “Te|dnn'” ~._e!! isms relevant faster ‘1?’
.oonsider;ation.and~«.by mignlng cogent and valid reasons
in ms greases. the Lower Appellate Court has
aoplioafion. The said reasoning given by
Appeliste court ffii’ ciisrnissifici the application
and reasonable. I do not find any perversity or
W
/
IN ‘Tl-!E’HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R.P.N0.l365 OF 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF iiAl_lN”AT}’\i€.A AT -oR.P.%.l%S ‘3.” 2!.’!!!
.6.
arbitrarinem in the order peeeed by the Lower A,-sfiliete
Court. Nor the petitioner has made out any good _
to entertains the instant revision petition.
as
I
W:
‘:’i’
an
ii
I!
!3
CI.
E?
in
I
‘.”‘u.”
3
ll.
Q.
B
1::
E
i
1
9».
e 1211.! _. _’.
the case as stated above, the pamton
by petitioner is dismissed as
accordingly
Sal.’ ‘
tsrr …. _, 311536
EN ‘l”H””£wE”‘” ””””P’!’ _F IULRNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R.P.N0.l365 OF 2004
\.III sown – _.