IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKA A'? BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE ma DAY :3? AUGUST
BEFORE %
THE H0N'BLi+: MRJUSTICE N. ANAfr§1:_::,»g if
(3IViL RE_\flS{OE PE*rmQ Q 2.392" ~ _
BETW BEN:
1.
Sri N.C§.Lit:ega1’ajc Um
Sfo. Gopalalajc Um
Aged about 5’1 ygfatrg
2:. Sri i§i§G.V$fcér3gj§: _ _
S/0. 4:?;o’;:»a1g;a3¢:’L¥;-sv%.’ .. ” ‘
.{§’g13d..aZh-outfif. y’t-:.aJf”S ‘
&AVI§§.”E'[{1 :”.Ni1’1’>£i£.*.gil1,1 Village
Arakalguti ‘.{‘£ziuis:._ ” _
Hafssan E%§.s;tzié£~5′?3G«IO2. …Pc=:fitio;3.ers
{By AE’.¥E,5s.E{u1;iia.t?:V&’ Abhinav.R_. Acivocatesi
. V£«…_ _Smt.–S-‘gitnérammanni
V’ — }?&’.j_{); Basavaraje Urs
« __g,bput ‘3″? yeam
2. iimtvifashodamxnanrfi
* alias Ramaxnmazmi
. W’/0. Naniataie Urs
Aged abcut 57 }>’:::a1*3
” All ars r[ a: Nilavagtilu Village
Doddamagge Hobli
Ara1<alguc£'1'a.lu.k~S7'301£22. Rcsgmndents
'(By Sz'iyui"11s Gixish B.B.ta1adar:: 3:; Jagadeesh I~I.M..,
Acivacates for R2)
This revision petition is filed under section 1:'
against the rarder dated 06.012009, passed in Misc,Nau~,–5j iE3.C)('13,. on
the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 65 JMFC at ArakaigudA,"aI:I'cW'i::g
the petition and re-opening O.S.No.82/' 1995 .f;uf1d'..restcr£ng theu
same for fresh triai & etc.
This revision petition coming 0}} forAa<ii:ni§3idn ibis"
Court made the fhilnwiflgt ' ' v . f I V
The matter is listed forsafizjzdission, 'fl}ci.vvL§'OI1SCI1t of
learned Counsel for Li§;§';'i.:'3?;kf;z1i _1:::,3V:Af~<x:;" final disposal.
2. The;_” I£:$fgfi_¥fied has flied a
mcmcg; “”” I«I;j’i’éSf§onde11t is the legal
mpmséntéfive .éf’:’§f:c$p§§i3d é;;:3t and If-mspondent is already
on z*e1co:ti’. ‘~., *
The gétitianaafi are the plainfifis in C).S.No.82i 1995
V Elfidw I 62. II are the icgal representatives of
i:r:isf3é£1dant and they are brought on recoxti as
£Z1ef£:11£i;”§IE}tfSV4’f(a} Ga ifb). The responcients did not fiie wxtitmn
” ~ Asfaigmfént in 516 afercstated suit. The other (iefendants
‘c;o§.1’ficstr:ci the suit. The trial Court framed; issues and
V’ “answered the issues against defendants and fiecmcd the
__–\_H ,§1.LL.(LL’ ‘
IV:
suit. Thereafter, responcients hexein made an appiieafion
under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. As there was
the application, they had filed an application V’
of the Liinitation Act.
4. The leaxned iriai Judge
oxfler in the foliowing fer:’ns:- K
“This pefi’£ip11er«..e”file}::i* fiefifioilvé to
restore the suit OT.S.’NLo.{!3§2/é 9:1 the file of
this Court. The Apefiitioneriebcdfiteiiéfled’ that one
:’Bé.§Qav.:fii ?aie’« the proceedings of
“£.he’ his behalf, the suit was
cieeseed firifhbiit opportlmity given to the
..defez;{éia§jts».w .7″I’he- peiifioner adduced evidence on
beheilf e:1e«’of the suit is already resiored for
V ‘ f_ responcient filed his objection stafing
fiae defendant has availed opportunities to
X T ” defend their case. The suit is already decreed, as
V prayed and prayeei to dismiss the petition.
021 gcaing thrcmgh the above facts and ease
of the petitioner and his Written argument, there
is prima facie case to restore and reopexz the
suit. Hence, it is just to allow this petition. The
same is allowed. Henca O.S.I’-10.82/1995
opened and restored for fresh Put
the original case file. Call on 12i01]2QQ’;§f€. ‘M
5. The ieamed triai Jud,q,té;,A_ g;§z;s:dcz~mjg’V
application filed undetr 5 of ” :11′-;-: :Ac’i3, 311:-1s§*
considemci the application 1’1″Vl’é.vzi«.._V’V’t:1x_1dc1: Rule 13
C..P.C., and passed. in Eforestated
terms. Tim icanacd tfia;vqltfiifiéV:ifi$.”‘{;€§’Eb.:VLfQfiSiEi€IBd whether
judgment rergdéifgfi’ I;§95__§ras on meztits of the
case. ‘*§’he without condoning the deiay
did not iiave to emartaixx the application filed
{3*;de1″V’I}E. Rvj11c_I3 of {“:.P.C. Therefore, the ixnpugncd
» :orr1e1′.¢a3.1nv;§t~–b¢ sustained.
£5, result, I gags the f:)11owing:~
QRBER
The zevisien pefificsn is accepted. The impugned mfier
f ;is set amide. The matter is remanded. to the learned vial
Judge with a direction to DE(:0I1Si€i£’3II’ the appficaiions flied