.sI\IIT_.LEELAXfATHI BAI
-.21' "sRI.LJ*AIRAM SINGII
MAJOR, SERVICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
AT GULBARGA ' A
DATED TIIIS THE 20TH DAY OE AUGUST:*2O1IO.I,jII % T L
BEFORE " 1% % % V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEANAN1j'BYRAR;E}ij'[§Y1 %
WRIT PETITION NO.83247M'%'OI?:;;Q1O'M (GA/I--OpO)
BETWEEN:
sRI.RAMNARAYANA.jvARM;A _
PRESIDENT OF "
MANAGEMENT
MANAGER OF ;:).c:II'AND'RA.KAtsI"TI4IA'
OIL MILL MO. (;A.DW'AI__,..ROAI)_' '
RAICHUR, . . PETITIONER
[BY sRI.vEERE~sH E.,V1i>'A_fI'I:L';'
AND: .. 1'
A .W,g'O 'LA'1'.E'; NARSINGH. 8%-f H NU« S-IN an H
I»IAJOR,"O'_c;(::'~I;IOUsEIiOLO
R/Q H.NO..1'8-~9~302/A
. CHAVDRAYYAN GUTFA
-- AP
5:»./O 'LATE NARSINOH BHAN SINGH
[Q
R/() H.NO. 18-9302/A
CHANDRAYYAN OUTTA
HYDERABAD - AP _
This petition is filed under oflthe
Constitution of India praying to issue a:.fWr'it in the naturéI1,i_:
of certiorari quashing the impugned 'order dateydp 3.'10';-.09
passed by the Civil Judge V Dn':)V at l'Rai~{§i'1ur in
1VIisc.No.6/02 vide Annexure~D a1*r:1_'ete. '
This petition e0mir1g;lg_.'o.n llinary hearing this
day the Court made the following; ' C A
The before the Trial
Court. respondents in the
year 1995.”t.hesanje-was’-..dismissed for nor1–proseeution
on 5.1.’§3′.2QO1.4.’ themlpetitioner had filed written
the yearml1996. An application was filed
under-‘C_)lrde4r’–«I}l_{lF:.{:ule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mlihereinafterl referred to as ‘CPC’) as on 10.1.2002. The
was eontested and was disposed of, only by an order
l.lclpatl’e-dlI5;ll10.2009, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the
ifii
‘9.)
application. The pendency of the application fovrVV_:o.\_:fe.r
seven years is wholly inexplicable and it .
that the respondent was to blamefo1i_the'”d’eiay.hit’
however seen that the present petitioner,
respondent in the application,
by tendering evidence vtoz thepti–eojntriary. hi the
respondent had tendered’ ‘4tfi§Vsd.d:_¢ie.n1.onstrate that
there was an t.1ri–fo1ftun.fa’t’e family which
prevented the’ ‘attending the Court
on the day the suit was
dismissed and the Trial Court has
accepted’ -the rueaso’r1s’ assigned and has awarded Cost of
present petitioner. it is this, “‘Wh_iC_- is
er ~ . it .1 ”
the unfortunate delay in the application
IX Rule 9 of the CPC, being disposed of after
5?
a gap of seven years is shocking, the fact remains _
present petitioner has not chosen to contest .
tendering evidence. Hence, the TI’ia1:C’Ol,lft ” ”
the application, is not out of place}
imposed is of only Rs.200/- hash
been allowed after a gap ‘oi1..giiEren the
circumstance that the more time
and gwen the the for several
years, it is imposed may be
enhanced. ifiecorciiiiiigifiiiipjmégisitlgisstgtoiriiposed shall be
enhanoed to is directed to
pay the costg. on the next. date ofhiihearing. The Trial Court
is 4u_rtherVd’ir’ec3ted to expedite the disposal of the suit.
SdI§____
‘Judge