IN THE HIGH COURT Of} KARNATAKA AT BAN£9ALQ§§E
oamza THIS THE 25*" may OF JUNE 'f%_j ".
BEFORE :
me HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Mo+«:a;«§§z $ H.é§!§!TAI$i»§::§@C?'<!;E:5}K§?V':'
mm emlzw No. £1193 o§'2o~o7 (&..%~W;...Asz.:;%2) % A
Between :
Smt. Ragarnma
Wjo late Rajugowda
Aged about 63 years
R / a Henganoor "Viilagc
Kasaba Hobii A ' ._
Channapatna'T3.lg;{k5 '
Bangalore ;'i2ural_DAi$f,3'Vic:§;V. _ .' ..Petiti0ner
{By 33-; R. séthgsh, vA:.:g',)'
gag. : % X
'V The..':I3ep§1_ty Qomnfiésiefim'
'Eanga1o:'e:Z«?u'ra}. District
_ 2. 'I"l*xe' Assiétaf13:..C{2Iizmisaioner
Baiagalorc. Rf.irjal District
Bangalolfi.
" H " 1 4."I'h<-T1 %'_I'ahéii<;lar
* . _ "Charinapatna Taluk
_ Ban-gfiore Rural District.
' 1... _, Jayaiakshmaxnma
W] G iate Chikka Yellegowda
Age. Major, R/a Sunnaghatta.
Viliage, Kasaba Hobii
Channapatna Taiuk
Bangalore District. . .Respnn_<;1_¢nt3
(By Sri Satyanarayana Singh, HCGR, for R} to R3;
Sri K. Hanumantharayappa, Adv, for R4)
-~----.
It
This writ petition is filcd under-'fiftickes '0f;tf1n
Constitution of india praying to quash; the».prtiar'--nTdatéd. 2§'.1_~2£){}7
passcd by the first respondent Vida A.h.ne3:_1n'e--A 'and..g¢$torfé«._.the
831116.
This writ petition coming on«.f61″‘. preiin:§na¢r3′..’-iheiizfiné in ‘B’
group this day, the Court made the fnilbwfing :
The order dated “-by the Deputy
Commissioner, Revision Petition
No. vthe. revision petition for default is
called in qim:-_s4€icrn’ii3
The nidar… «sheet maintained by the Deputy
V.’-.Qunifi1i$sipnnf<»n.&discloses that on 21.11.2006 both the parties
were'. the Beputy Commissioner. 011 the next
'date i.c.. on 29.1.2001 again the advocates on both
x V' ..siddesn~-._.wevn: absent. Having no other go, the Deputy
–. fnflnnnninsinner dismissed the matmr for default.
3. The action of the Deputy Commissioner in ‘dismissing
the revision petitrien for default caxmot be said to be ermnenus.
‘W
– 3 –
Even before this Court, the petitioner has not aven1ed___any
reason, much less, valid reason for remaining absent %r_ei'<)I"'eVfi:1.Ae
Deputy Commissioner on the relevant date of hean-fa: "
petition is drafted in most casual mane A xzer. H V
course, this Court would not have
order. However, having mgaxii. the '-pilight .pa;1'ties* . L'
involved in the matter, 'apt the
writ petition. Because of jfault t'IieVeiV;$2§ii»«v'<3eatcs, the parties
should not sufl'er.v V the concerned
advocate in drafling the
wxii petifion; "clieiits will sufler. In saw of the
same. this one more opportunity to the
_ pefificfigef. the foflowing order is made
[ Lfprgies-..vdated 29.1.2007 passed by the 1st respondent
–LI3ep’e’T:”1__t},r1 Bangalore Rural District, in Revision
V V’ _ Petikiix. N£i.16..’§/ 20135-06 vide A3:mexure~’A’, is set aside. The
” ~ .. efiattey’ iséemjtted hack to the Deputy Comxnissioner for fresh
e.C0§;iSi.’1efafi’on of the matter. However, petiiionefs advocate
shah pay costs of Rs.2,000/ –. As the Iespondenfs counsel has
V’
-4-
also remained absent, he is not entitled fer costs. A’
shall be fa-Ifeitcd to the State.
fibklf