High Court Karnataka High Court

Mohammad S/O Imamsaheb Pendari vs Fatima W/O Babusaheb Jamadar on 1 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mohammad S/O Imamsaheb Pendari vs Fatima W/O Babusaheb Jamadar on 1 September, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
BETWEEN:

116 ms ma:-1 coum or xAaxA*rAI€;é." %  gyf f v 

cmcurr amen AT DHARWAB..A. :fl.  

mrmn '11-us THE 15? my oi:-f sn:§';*:rafiz3"E;R;-  é  7

REM»    _  
THE HOIPBLE MR.  A.$}.'
fi.F'.A {CPO}  

AGED ABOUT 5:2. YEARS,   '. ;.
GCC : ;y::.%:a>--I<;ULf1*U1EHv"LAND HOUSE
OF' CPLANNAPPA'vVEERA?PA~«SHIRAGUPPI
SITUATED AT TER.¥fi.A_L; TQ -JAMKHANDI 53730:
DIS'I':Bi'.,GALKOT =   

MoHAMMA:>"S}5 ibié§:;¢$AH§:B- ;?:';§_z~I1i;{A.12.;'

 "    ..APPELLAN'I'
{By gm H.AR1sH»S,_ MAIGUR, ADV.)

 »AN::3._

  -..;~'«'p;*r:'§s1iA__ Mai BABUSAHEB JA.MAI3AR

_ AGE!) 'A393? 57 YEARS
'=--0c--._€: HQUSEHOLDWORK R/O CHINAGUNDI
TQ. JAMKHANDE, £')iS'f'. BAGALKUP ---- 58'? 361

V'    :Ea;HAJA:~«IBi W/C1 BABALA JAMADAR

AGED ABGUT 52 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O CHINAGUNDI
TQ. JAMAKI-{AND}, DEST'. BAGALKOT --- 587 30$

é

,.--
"s



3. MASHAMA w/0 HUSENI PENDARI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS  " V 
occ HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O CHINAGUIXEIX   '
TQ JAMAKHANDI   ._ : "  »
9131* : BAGALKOT - 537 301

4. RAMAPPA s/o GURUPADAPPA Ta;
AGES ABOUT 52 YEARS   
occ LEGAL REPRESENTATIYEA __   
'rQ JAMAKHANDL msq' : BAGAL!{QT -- 587 301 

KKAAPPANAEIAR = V' "

  Ri%:ist3CND§:NTs

(By SRE SANTOSH M. BABA;J:;'A:3vf' :"~*o;_?2:  
312; MC. HUKKERE, Am, FOR-.I§~{1)  ~ *

THiS;'AI~'f?EAL" :12; F'I'LF,.E_Z$"U__/"S V-.--{+3..gz) m or CPC AGAINST
THE 0293132  QATEID'-. "'z.5.~m§;20c}§8 PASSED IN CIVIL
MISC.Pf3.*I'I'TfQ1§lii,NO§31'20GEi{C*N Ti-:'E:"F;L1': 09' THE DESTRICT AND
SESSIQNS ,1U3'G'§',,~.;3A:r3Am{Qf1f. « -

'rI»iis.LA;>1>EA:. C§£§hiI':l%¥x'34¥CV>N FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DE1,'r'azEme:p -f:*m_ FGLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

%”‘%%1*h¢#”%%§;57p»e11ant herein is the defendant in

‘v._’O.S.No.1?%4[9I. The said suit which was flied by the:

A ‘~:}fc<§:iié$fing respondents henein. seeking for a desclaraision was

' décreed by the tnlal Court. Aceemdingly, the appcllant

igemin filadia regular appeal in R.A.No.14-4/2001. The said

i

an»
/a

appeal fiicci by the appcnam herein baron;

Appellate Court was dismissed for default K

since the learned counsel for the;

appear before the Lower "

restoration of the regular a VV

Misc.pctit:ion in Jed” Mviécfgvactifion is

dismissed by order dafid : as such the

appellant is 2

2} w.T’};j;e in the appeal memo is

miterfiicfi for the appefiant.

” The’ counsel for the respondents hcrwever

‘ by contending that the Lowm’ Appellate

” {‘,£)i3.rt that the appeilant herein. was not diiigczlt

in the appeal. Therefore, the Lcawer Appcllatc

V, vviizas not satisfix-‘xi with the reasons assigned and

“mtingty, it has dismissed the Mis(:.Pt:tit:ion. According

.4

p.-.

46

ten the learned counsel for the zesponsients, me

15.04.2008 does not call for interference. : ” = -.

4. In the fight of what has beezr; cpngsfifiag; E’-Izaiie

perused the appeal papers. V I1: isep

the appeal was fisted on 06. .. for ” V

the appellant herein hadznot -»pm$’eSs.«.of. appeal
by appearing before he such the Lower

Appeflatc ihad ” It is also a fact

that appeal had been rejected
and hed ‘beep Even assuming such a

situation, ‘<L.i€;nSi(}.e_rin:gA;'–._ts11e*"bfact that the appellant has pleatied

' _ a poefVag;:bult1u*ist and was unable to contact the

L' keep track of the caae, a pragmatic view'

ieq§'1ires« 13%: taken, since in any event, the part;1e' s are

nag§efig;_§im regard to certain rights relating 1:9 immovable

» Therefore, there should be an appropriate

éezljudicafion on merits on the case.

$

–..,

5

5. Accordingly, the order dated 15.04.2903 is set
aside. However with the conditions imposaw herein. “I1:,this

rcgaxti, it is made clear that the mstoration of “i:’v:T;i”efV’!.1_;:eVV* and dum:1′ g the time
flame fix<':;-rd by V' ..~~Appe1late Court, the learned

counsg}. "gthe appellant btzfozve the Lower

~£.":g3u11; xéé 'address the arguments and complete

flié hag case. It is also made cktar that if that is

fizrth n by on behalf 0f the appellaztlt, no further

indiiigeizgehvfivoulé be shwm to the appeilant. Since the

x V' .._1:$a'rt'i¢s represented before this Court, they 511$} appear

— the Lower Appellate Court on 12.10.2fl as the first

Q

#9

daft of appearance and tm Lcwer Appellate Cour?

thcreaficr rcguiatc the pmcazdings.

In terms of the above, the appeal {if

with :10 order as to costs in this