High Court Karnataka High Court

Niranjan vs Sangraj Sarnadgoudar on 18 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Niranjan vs Sangraj Sarnadgoudar on 18 August, 2008
Author: H.Billappa


EN THE men (10913? 01? l{}&i%N§¥I’A}iA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA;’_:””‘ ‘ ; –%.:

DATED ‘§’HI.’:’-‘> THE 18TH BAY gap A{}(J{;’»S?If~:;§G£§8<- _ ,4 "

BEFORBi't___

THE §-10m'~3LE MR.V;}'i§$TI{§}13.. H.B}LJ}§&PPAV :1

M.}"§._A.No. 1429/23.30? ~ T %

BETWEEN:

Niranjar: 5/0. _ _    . A,
Kamaiakar Rae' {Mah1i:rkai';"V    V.

Aged 35 yg-=:;13~'2:~,__ 'lj_

C}C(EI{3{}i1€1″.’}.££:fL;3T, : :71: ‘* 3 &
R/0. Eira1n.hap’i_J¢ra;’.A * — .
Gu1bafga–58′:3 .. .AP13;E3LLANT

{By »’i3£3§3}1pa3’1de for appsilantj

V’
S/’0, ‘Gouda Samad

Gwgtdar. . ‘ ‘
Age’:~45’*–§;ears, Or.:c:L€:r:tu2*er

» v. _ ‘ In MS}; Junior Coliega,
V. ., Ki *0, Datta Nagar,
” .AA.Jexv_a’rgi Coierzy,

C’§~L1}ba.rga–585 183. . . .RESP{)NDEN’I’

(By Sri. Sharanabasappa Patii for raspondent).

{I/.

E»)

This MFA is filed under Orcier 43 Rule: Ht) ” (‘3}:’C,
against 111:: order dated 23~12~2006 pa’s$C:i’–_ Vin

Misailase No.76/06 on the file of the PI’1.E’i$§fi;iC§V’§.:1;lL’igC;’ %
Gulbarga, dismissing the petitian filed u11d_e’r £31f’§.”t&i*
R2116 19 of CPC far ;*est03ratioz1 of RA 3f3,’»€i}__E§j~.£ii’s:12«ifssgf<ii= .. '

far dafault.

This M24 coming on for T£~I<§23;'ii:gA' mi$'::;–ioI1.fh;i's; €Za3?;_

1:116 court delivered the follow-§;1g:w

This appeal is éixéritiéd datctd 2-':3~12~

06 passed Jftzfige, Gnlbarga in

Misc. Case 1 iv. .

2 By t}V3c:” the court belew has
rétjected the ‘fled ¥:»y the appallafit under Order

&1¥§r–(;f Vfi:$’i”éstore the agapeai to file.

filed reguiar appeal in

H: came: it} be dismisseéi for non—

01§i”‘1§~8~,’2G4(}6. Thereafter, the appcilant flied

égpfiéafidn to restore tbs appeal to fiica. That appiicatimi

V .T V V Ifiadljeézi rejected.

YV

” _ re.i£§6ndsni;.

4. aggrieved by that, the appeliant herein héihfiffieé

this appeal,

53. The .lear;1ed c:o11:1st:1 f0_:_r..t.h¢’ K x

that the Cmzfi beiow was not }§,1s-t:ffit:::i in

agaplicafion. He: also s1zbn.i}_fi§:_d, rig: ‘on tiV1e~.

app€IL21I1t’s counsel haii gone “i:<:§ «$9 cofiduct an
ektcfian petition and %}1a.f€;fQrc_ }1»§;'Wéi'SV'}1{ii~§}r€S€flt befem the
court when the case wa,<»3..cé1iEe(i.31aé "iheféf;;';*<7:9, the court was

not j11stiiie€§ {he :_4Va;g§ijii{éati0n. He themfom

submiviivtedv eriier cannot be sustained in
law: T

"'F.h_é1*::_ is "representation on behalf of the
H carefufly CO}T1SidE1'('i{§ the subm:iss.iz:ms

ifiacfié by counsel for the appfiflflflt.

Z I find Considezabie farce in the submifision ezzaf the

caunsel fer the appeilant, $61" the rczasvzm, the appeai

Wigiqs beer: dismissefi for nan-pnmsecution on 19-8-2806.

IV

Tfiereafter, appiic-ation has been fiiad to restara $i:%;~V

is fikt, am tha grouné, tbs colnrasel fin" the V'

gene to Seciam to condacii an v:~:.i&:<::t;i<;:3 .g}::ti€."_¥:r:1 'i;§€ffii'fOI'£'3_, V

he was 11:31 prmem before the c'9ur':_"Wi:1er£~_if:;5*: Qas=§"*~

called, 'I"ht:1*sfm'e, in my Corssidgrsci isi€:w,. the E;§reioW'» '

'wag not justified in rejecting ;2pp;Li_cati<5::«a,13d E61106, firm

impilgned oriiar cannot"~b§i su'$tair;£tl"=§r'1»~

9. A;:c«:¥;%ci:ing1j§’, V éaiiowed anti Ethe:

impugned ;ci:’::”.« «_:::.=i V”‘s.ff:<;1;:~t beimw in Mis.C:c2se
N't:).76,"2G{)6 i;é§i§::a;r'4:3:'}V.§,e{"~gs;de ";§it:€i thc appeal in
R.A,No,30/20 {}55"is The cmzrt beiew is
ciimcied to .of"t§:§: '{.x?itE1i11 six merlths from tha

data gbf £1 c:0p§?'i§i"v–€£*:«is order,

Sd/-3
Iudg33