Sri T Chandrababu S/O C M Tayanna vs Sri K Subramani S/O K Muniyappa on 3 March, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3" DAY 0? MARCH 2oj1otTf'*'sII
BEFORE   I  I "

THE z-IoN'8I.E MR.JUSTICE,,RAVI_-SV1ALI§ZiA4f'iI  V
WRIT PETITION No.1511i1 o%Ey'y2o05(C_M.ecPc1t'I,I T
BETWEEN: V'  t' " tv  V'

1. Sri T.Chandrababu

S/'o"IC..tl§fI'jI;Tayé?.;rIna'-:9  t '
Aged.abo::t...V2'2.yye.ars.,.__ . '

2. T.'Mot4Iayn '   S 
S/0 C=.M.Taya_nr..a 
 'Aged ab0LI_t"21 years.

  .TE:__ve6kAa'teSh ..... ..
 "  TS/4o*C;vM.'Tayanna
 yAge~dV'_ab'o.u't 20 years.

 A,._!_'i' 'are' residents of
Obechudanahalli,
I  Kanakapura Road,
 Kaggaiipura Post,
 Bangalore South Taiuk. _..PETITIO3\IERS

Vt   (By M/s.ACC Associates, Advocates)

I 054/~*



AND:

 

1. Sri K.SubramanI
S/o K.Muniyappa   
Major, 1

C/o Peddanna
Residing at Staff Quarters,

M/s Mysore Fruits Pi'Od'iJC'€S_V Ltdi;-._  V
Mahalakshmi Layout, ' " 
Bangalore.

2. Sri C.M.Tayanna  _ 

S/o Guruswamy i V V

Aged About 51 years.
Resid_i.ng.,  . 4':  
C/o F'edci.a~nn'a';--. . "  '

I'iol;'22()u,"j;'Saracban'd.e'palya","'*~-- 

i:<an_a.l<;apuiraV_ Road,  '

Bangalore V:-3.o"utti .Ta!uiil<
V.WVrit Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Con-st'itution of India praying to set aside the impugned
ord.er'g_ passed in the appeal in RA.No.12/O1 dated

i.,15-7~*2006 in respect of IA.No.1 filed by R1 under

S'ection.5 of the Limitation Act by the Court of the

 "i--'--r'I.District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District Vide
 Annexure-A and dismiss IA.No.1 with exemplary costs by
issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ.

This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the
court made the following:-

0?/~"'"



ORDER

The petitioner filed a
Court of Principal Civil Judge, 4Afialngalore,’..”.,:pJr4a«l
Bangalore, seeking for a of suit
was decreed on 3O._”9fi”;vi3 l§5VV{‘)’APVAVVproceedings
No.58/1994 were iniytiyategd by the
respondents ‘ AThe.’rea_fte’r:.”the..,respondents filed the
lRule 13 of cpc which
camgel by the same, he filed MFA
the order dated 24–1–2001 it was

held that’VthVe’inipu.’gnAe.d order therein was notvan exparte

Consleguently RA No.12/2001 was filed before

District Judge, Bangalore Rural District,

A”B_ang»a’loVlrieAlalong with LA. seeking condonation of delay in

.. -a ..

_ _fi|ing…the appeal. The same was Aggrieved by

same, he filed Writ Petition No.42S13/2004 wherein by

the order dated 13–7–2005 the Writ Petition was allowed
and the matter was remitted back to the appellate Court to

1!: gamed}
o’23r*4–‘”3~”{‘7 q)L_,_,_.._

reconsider the application for condonation
remand the present impugned order
allowing the LA. and the delayflof 8
days was condoned. Hent:e_, the”.p’resent»”?e?tit_ion

plaintiff.

2. The learn.ed:’_cou’n_Vseel fort’ri~:éj,VpVetitioner contends
that the and liable to be set
aside. VHefconterid.s°i:tiiaVt'”when the earlier application

——– .3.

gr QK’4\/***'” seeking _co’n.dona«tioniveV d_ei_~ay was ejected, Writ Petition
Ollbweat C0r’rec”l,e.c!9. i\lo.42’3_143/2004′ was'”F«i.l’:e’d”‘.which was allowed by the order

oi-Ola dated dr;ited.13-7»2oo5. i

…..

V,A’.i’~.I.’-3’have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the ,___vp’eti.t*ioner. The respondents though served have

_ _rem’a-ined absent.

4. This Court while disposing off the Writ Petition

i\lo.42513/2004 at paragraph 4 has held thus:

OK/6′”

” ……………. .. The order placing A S’
respondent ex parte is no_t..th_e subjec’t:’rnai’terV if
of regular appeal and consequéeritl~y “it
be said that the, _fl’rst’~..Arespondent’v if

prosecuting the remedy/”~~else where . no’ “‘se”ci’z”on

‘ll

14 is applicable ……….

Therefore this the Writ Petition
clearly Section 14 of the
Limitatioi1..VAict;*;is.hot:::–a:pi_p.lc:ica’blelgtothe application filed by
theiirespondjéefltgilfifiereiilnhthe-Wtioyurt below was bound by the
findinlg..V_p” Court in Writ Petition

Nrn’.-42.513./2.l)04″” while considering the application on

.yArheri”ts. VViFa_ilure to do so has therefore led to miscarriage of

1 renders the impugned order bad in law. It

wasV___v’notf~”open for the Court below to dwell upon the

.A _appii.cabi|ity of Section 14 of the limitation Act to the

V’-proceedings. Hence, reliance placed on Section 14 of the

E Act is wholly erroneous. Consequently, the findings

recorded that the delay requires to be condoned is an

<'Z<-

erroneous finding and is in gross vioiation 0f”‘thé..’_’€i.ndi_n_g«s_

recorded by this Court in Writ Petition ” –«..

For the aforesaid’ reas’on:s:,T’thé”.,tA.o~r.der”.:”d..at’ed

15-7-2006 passed on I.Aw.i\i’o:fI~.rin tire’?

Principal District 8:”._SessiO’nsnt_:”J’ij”d.ge, flE3ang~a’iore Rural
District, is set asidef.j’C’on§équ_’§air$ti;4,”‘-R./A. No.12/2001

stands dismissed,

Ruie .r-E/_i