High Court Karnataka High Court

Arasikere Town Municipality vs Sri H M Ramachandra Rao on 20 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Arasikere Town Municipality vs Sri H M Ramachandra Rao on 20 August, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
- 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'8LE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH 
REVISION PETITION NO.200 OF 2009   '
WRIT PETITION NO.4131 OF 2o06(LB5r   T-

BETWEEN:

Arasikere TO'vv"n  

Municépafity,' ' f"    " _

By its Cfzfgef Officer,--.3   

B.H.Road,V._ ._  A 

Arasikefe ~ '573103. '- ...PETITIONER

  gay TV!/ENé'g.'_Asso<fié'fés & Sri K.R.Nagendra,
 '   



STE 'H...MA.'Ravmachandra Rao

--- S/0 |ate7H.My|araiah,
 Aged about 66 years,
'gKa-'~.'--€3'r% Nilaya, Near K.P.S. Petrol

Bunk, B.H.Road,

  ....,5\rasii<ere - 573 103. ...RESPONDENT

(By M/s. Ashok Haranahalfi & Associates, Advocates)

QY5/,A,……..

This Review Petition filed under Order 47_Ruie4i’

.1.

CPC, praying for review of the order dated

passed in W.P.No.4131/2006.

This Review Petition comingiflorifogr
the court made the foiiowin9:~ * ” ”

%.i{3
This Petition is filed s_ee’i<.ing.._V_to the order
dated 3–2~2009 passed…V:i"n_AV'i!rit{_'PieétifaigoiiNo.4131/2006 on

various grounds.» . V

2; .;*iearnegd–.v' eo"unsei appearing for the
petitioner"subrnitsg-».fi[r1a.r44vdi'iottx_:_ithStanding the grounds urged

by him, thegddcouirt Vre_vay«.:_"~Consider the fact that there has

é_ beVe'ri.a:niA'erVror Vin"-no_t__'engaging a counsei to defend the suit.

fo_r'<tifi.irs"reason alone that certain facts transpired,

.'cou'i~d Vnot'7'gjbeaI="brought to the notice of the Court. He

sub4rni.tsi.VthVat in view of the absence of the respondents,

the-".order having been passed requires to be set aside.

14/%–~—

3. The learned counsel appearing for_the

respondent on the other hand contends that evenV.V’t.hiohi.iVgh

notice has been served, he has deliberately not;’_”appe~a’.reid:_,:_ _

4. Heard counsels.

5. Inspite of issuing not=i_vce,,.th_e

not represented. The petitiori-e__r subrhits that

error in communication the reispo’ridVents”cQul’d not engage
a lawyer. The contei’i,t_ifon of the’ “l..ea_rned counsel for the

petitioner bonafide and requires to be
accepteicir “En viewiter tlzefaict that due to non~appearance

the order huas.,Vt;e’e’n pass’ed)it is just and proper to impose

goéts theypetitiouner. The petitioner shall pay a sum of

ayscosts to the respondent in addition to a sum

ofi—.i}:s.;§;ooVilCi=/4 to be paid with the Registry of this Court

ywithin-ai” period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

of this Petition. For the aforesaid reasons the order

.. __dated 3-~2-2009 is recalled. Writ Petition is restored.

W

Post the Writ Petition for consicferaticm;”iiéefQ’re: tE3Ve’=_

regular Court.

Rsk/~      é