High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Sarmoddin S/O Sofisab vs Sri Suresh S/O Gurupadayya on 13 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Sarmoddin S/O Sofisab vs Sri Suresh S/O Gurupadayya on 13 August, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
EN THE HIGH Comm' 0? E{ARNA'I'AKA 1 

<3IRCUI'}f' BENCH AT GULBARGA   . ; 

BEFORE 

THE i{~iQE'¥'BLE MR. .msT1<;:E L.&*ARi§YANA $'a1%A:_m%L 'L«.::VA

BATES mzs THE mm  ALm:sa:2:}eg  

w.P.No..;§a59..!20%§?Ii;1<1

BEWNEEN

Sm SARMQEDIN,  
S/O SO§<'ISAB'"~ . _  .:, 
agar) 49 YEARS,   
CA¥~?PEN'§'$Ie., '- V    '-
NEAR {EB C()§.LE€"_}E 'SHA§§AP'U__R"'!'OWN,
SHAHAPUR, GULBARGA DISTIECT,

.-- .. " ._   '  PEFZTIONER

=%'f'V%(?§ys;~i,'%%%;%~ S-TSANJAY HC}GW DA, ADV.)

 SR1 SUR4'E:3SPiAS}'i3 GURUPADAYYA
~ H fj.-AG:-ED 36 YTZAIRS,

_  'BE;31N£:ssMAN, NEAR BC COLLEGE,
 SF1A_HAP{;;§R '}"OWN,G{}LBARGA D¥S'I'RIC:'I',

".RESPONDENT

4: _ {jRay Szi : VEERESH B PATIL, ADV.)

TV and was under treatment at Shahapur from
he was not well, he could not approach his
oiaiairxing fitaess certificaitt fmm the Doctor on
. he has appmacheci his colmsei without therebeing deiay.
filing medicai cexfificats and application for conéonatiaza of

S “deiay, the petitioner did not step into the Witness box and deposed

‘FI-iiS WP. WLEQ PRAYING TO QUASH ‘rHER:>}3:’é’ 4_
23.2.2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, -«, ‘V
LA} IN MISC. R.A. 22f2004 VIBE ANXr:€3″:”..N’D –‘CONSEQU£T}NTU’f
ALLOW 1A.: AND CQNDONE THE DELAY o1:f_4j2 ‘£)AYS–._IN..’F’..IALI.{QC}
mg APPEAL. ” ‘ .. ~

This Writ; Rstition coming _ forA”pzfciimTiI;ajt§z”‘
this day, the com”: made the fol}awi11g:’– _ ” ‘ ‘

The p€titione;” i:”iied izxjunction and
declaration. Ting. ‘sziit d_¢c{r§et :kj.i g_ra1’1tiJ3.g injulzction and
in mspeci: ofVVd§:ci;;{i*a1V;”i0};i< qzhe -s{i:i1:::Vi;<raa2";..¢jVis,fi;isse{i against which tha
petitioxler –.0':x1"the: file of Cixzil Judge (SD),
Shompur. Whfie that was dciay of 42 days.

§~I:_:-;I2Cz~:, I:1§:_; fi1ed LA. I\Vi’c>(..VI’ 1i’11€,i1=::r Section 5 of Limitafion Act seeking
ficndfimqtibn. cigziay in pmferring the appeal. In support of the

appiAit:.9;ti€i;1.TAhL§”medical certificate contending that he was

“<

\

3

to prove his afiiciavit and its contents. The court bcisw

by mereiy filing the application for condonatimtt

producing meéical cefiificatc and fimess ceri:ificat::.Vis;:_A’1:;3t’ éfifiatiéni ”

1:0 9012610116 the delay and dismisssed
Hence this writ pstitiozl. V’ ‘ .’ V ‘

2. it is the contenfian ofV’VL’tTt§e gctifiomér ‘vihfiéii he was

sufisring fiom fever and he 2’1%§1s..’g§gedicai’Acéftificate to

‘aha: cfiect. He ;.0~r1Iy’ aftc.2:_ ahtaining the medical
certificate he 1§z3$E:~!)Elf: i:}, mes}; aégvcxfiate, which is the genuine:
mason in slipport :>f;§é1s,é§A’–T.__i¥i’€<tic5;c, ha mught for setting aside

the impugnfid G7I':§§:t. _

3. Tfhfi ‘v+rg2aso’§1’sf””‘é1sVsigned by the petitioner has been

vexifieri t:’:Tr2r1_::§sV£i:¢ applicafion fileé by him befere the iower

‘VV’-….appe11$itr: “{fou;§*:.’ L_’!.”:i101:zgh the court was right in mjectjng the

2_1;§jp1iea1:iGn ~fof;_c0nc1012a£§on of fielay, the court sheulzzi have given

to that petitioner to adduce evidsnce in supyort of

_’j~h_._is« ‘caé§e. Hfiitflclfi in the intsmst of justice and equity, the order

Apiasysfleé by ihc court mow in R.A.NO.22/2664 an I.A.No.I ciatad

:23.2.200’? is setwaside. The pefitioner is pexmittéd 1:63 fils

“<

appropriate agpficafien fer comionatioxx cf delay wifimin twfti

from the date of mceifjt cf {raspy of this oxfler.

With this obsfirvation, this petition _