IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5m DAY OF OCTOBER 201;)
PRESENT Q O ON
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.J\fAIVC3'ISAB-1-'iA§41*§TT::'A~O~:' A
AND I 'O 1'
THE HON'BLE MRS.JuSTI_CE B.w\t/'.~..I§l'AGAF{f5ITVf!O!\1P.W
MISC. WRIT NO._BBB7 OE
I Aw I _
MISC.wRIT7'NO-. L7B1"4
WRIT APF_'_EALAi\!O.~ :3_]9'8«.'O'F '"2IOOSI'L'--RESg
ToAjPj2Ao10
BETWEEN , A O'
IIM--B EMFLO'\{EEi§:;,ASS_OCIA'TIQN,
IIM--B:,COMP'L!€X,
BANNERS-HATFA'jRO'A,D;~._ .. I
BANGALORE 560 'O26 * _
BY ITS GENERAL' SECRETARY.
~ A " ._ ...APPELLANT COMMON
IN BOTH APPLICATIONS
:{VB"{Vrv1,f,S'.aIV}.OC;.NARASIMHAN ASSTS., AOvS.,)
'N.\!'D' 'A
THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAO,
'B.AN'GALROE 560 076.
~ 'BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
-rOFFICER.
..RESPONDENT COMMON
IN BOTH APPLICATIONS
MISC. WRIT NO.8887/10 IS FILED UNDER SECTION
5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDOINE’-THE
DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REI’2ALALI’I\l.GV«’f}’IE’v,4
ORDER DATED 22/06/2010 FOR…TH_E REVAES’L§iS£S’.”STAT’EVD”I
THEREIN.
MISC. WRIT NO. 7814/’I015 FILED EUNEDEER: SECTION
151 OF CPC PRAYI.NiG..é_TO«”E.I5iE’C§Af_i;I”T.HE ORDER DATED
22/06/2010 PASSSED WREAL AND
RESTORE Tt’3E~T.,/AI~’PEf:*~’L goé’ 1T§’:.EE’C)’F?.IGVI’NAL FILES TO BE
HEARD ON ‘IN I§”R_IT.SI”I–FO:R’:’TjifH’E’-«E§.E}5;SO’NS STATED THEREIN.
ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DIM’-,4_’SAVlE>’I’?i;’5I_l~’9l’I:T J’.:’.”‘_.1’*4l}f3VI£)E THE FOLLOWING:–
2’ – !;~.E’eEI?d_ O;-Dsthe appiications «- Misc. w. Nos.7814/2010
A I A ané 388.7/’2E01 0.
I 2. Misc. w. NO..7814/2010 is filed under Section
W151 of CPC., for recafling the order dated 22.06.2010
passed in W.A. No.3798/2009, wherein four weeks time
19;/5
was granted finally to comply with the office obj_e_ctions,
failing which, it was ordered that the writ apjpeia”l«.Vy:shail
stand dismissed for non–prosecution, withogt ‘i.fLilrt’iier’~.4_
order from the Court. Since the_o.i°.fi.ce objfefctfions ngtff
complied within the time gra’néted,i”‘fthe’~-§ap.peal”V.f_;’sto’o:d
dismissed as per the pe’i*e_ri’:.pVtory”‘order.’ “‘:.cT’iiierefore’,”V
application —- Misc. W37814:/.?.0ii0y i’s_,_fi|ed “fovr…re.r.£aliing the
said order. Since the’i–;eis’A’–dei-aiy’days in filing the
application for piecalling’ No.8887/2010
is filed for is unnecessary to
issue n_otivce’~.to’ they were not served
with IlQtlC.E”aA0Vf(.i!7l’:’22’.06′.’é:0’1.0. 7
Hay-iriigyv reoard to the averments made in the
V:§ii3.pVfl:ica_tions:’su_pported by the affidavits of the General
fse¢fre.tar;2i*.¢r thevffappellant and the learned counsel for the
appuellarity we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made
‘f”‘:i’.v4,””‘soot__forV””condoning the delay of 26 days in filing the
igapplication –Misc. W. No.7814/2010 and to recall the
if “order dated 22.06.2010 passed in W.A. No.3798/2009.
to
Accordingly, both the applications are aiiowed. The
delay in fiiing the application for recalling th.e~..:ortd’e;- is
condoned. The order dated 22.05.2010
No.3798/2009 is recalled and th%e,..appea:«isire};<;oredi%_::o the r _
file of this Court.
Iudge
SU£Tl£1