IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA.'.lEA.KA CIRCUIT BEQCH NJ.' GA !'AA'.l.'% THIS T33 12"' DAY OF DE%BR 2008 PRESEQT ma now 31.2 ms Jvstr.-xm ransom ns,zs..no.7o1,o/zaoe ¢ °ma;._ awrwam: I I 1. Sushila Baa'. W/<3 Late fiawappa. Hallikhed, Age about 62 yaa'.-:a_,__ ' Gccupatian: Househo1d.,U '_ ' 2. Ra.jend;ra, V _. 8/0 Late Vfiawafim' '***.atl1,_,~~ Edda: props. W/o Chapte, years, "0c:¢n;;:a,1:ion Housaold, ' (die; I.a;ir.e Eawappa Kalliklaed, _;~.- ,_»'.3/2002 was allowed on 13.7.2007 only when they were served with notiee by the couxt in OS.Ro.59,/2993 to appear on It is not in dispute that the £i'3;edfhy"*»tng respondent hexseunder was c¢ntes:'1;ed_---by}? t!;e,'1.5resent , .'
appellants as 1:’espcndents,7 who
an Advocate. According tout’ the
lflfidgfnaflt BN3 dficiree ‘ was
not communicated to Court or
irztzitrated to; thy; for the
appellants V.-Appellate Court.
He £urt3:;éi’t’ partition in
2007 and’ c:V>:i;’¢aI’V” “going on between the
family Vtrhepefitfitre, no one too}: personal
-“v.;LnteV_::’e.s.st__tA”%<;~ pendency of the appeal and
'._t'£aerea,€o.1:e«,.t all the above said facts delay of
*ax"~:;1:x:;t;1s.
sésflsayé’ in.
” from hypertension and mxxtiple
Therefore, she was unable to mmt
Counsel. to find out what was hazgwning.
4; ‘A:~,c:ording to the first appellant, she was.
5. on perusal of 1:219 entire atatexial on
record, it is noticed this first appellant _.-is
suffering from mzltipla arthritis ~_’
hypertension for the last 2 years. It ~
ease of the appellants that one
person was deajiing with V’~,th.i._.’st..:’ rattér “fry
approaohing as. counsel. for: -giviirig ;i.x;st.i¥&:;tVions:§.
Even in the partition to; the
learned Counsel for the
appellants got some or-it other in
survey tho; gt: between the
parties ” portion of survey
No.69 guntas came to be sold.
-V tefipondent they are claiming the
~A.bai5nging to the aypeliants itxaing
by over: inciting the fact that in
the vfitrtior of the land. Municipality
formed a road.
‘>6! The contromxsy is whet.hex:- in the portion
jfrétainacs by the appellants in Survey notes the
pi*es;e”éxzti’i§.g their case .
5
mortgage in favour of the respondent woeld fall
or not?
‘3. The suit was decreed partly and the same
was challenged by the respondent against these
appellants. The learned Judge of
Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of £§éf”‘”
trial ccurt by ranitting
trial court for local inspeetiea” by _a, c§fi§tT*[
Cami.-ssioner. This order to V be an
13.7 2007 and at no where in the gatira_ju§gment
there _ te the fact that the
Counsel appearifig appellants hereunder
Zbefareg’ ” the it “B’,ir’et V” Appellate Court was not
In order to show that
” not intitnate the disposal of the
matteti appellants, the best infornation
been 1110 file the affidavit of the
who represented before the Court. Even
..__”V’et1iute’us oooiizxraéing
within the family, same cannot’ gram
condonation of delay .
8. Apparently, V …1:he::锑 tttégiétered
Partition deed, whioii such
internal znmnbers.
Even :2: txga :T.’;;§g;»Wz’.nti:nate the
disposal ” sfincuxaaent upon the
appellants _ _ was happening to the
appeal. of delay always is
a matter _of oisorétionary relief by the Court,
Aivi; not such discretion should! be
_;.inc!:iaoxfin2i§&ately. The very facts placed
_,;,e£o£o,_”‘%tnga.”=::g:.:£zt would indicate for the best
.;éz.§ons to the parties, they remained quiet
and now all the four of them contend
had interse disputes. It is noticed om
oftvttha apwllants was a government servant and
ooother appellant was suffering from mzltiple
arthritis. Even these grounds cannot *.§g 2
considered as sufficient grounds.
Accordingly, InAwNbc1f20¢8 _is_ 2disQiss§d;_ ?
Consequently, the appeal a;s§ s£anfis_dis¢iafiéd. E “‘