IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, _2I'>fi'Q R.'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE qAGAI\I'I\IAI*i*I§1Aé\II-- _ Q
M.F.A.No.6274 /2QQ5:.(.C.I?C«}_ ' I C - 5
BETWEEN:
I. M/SSCYALAG1
AREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP _
FIRM BY ITS MANAGER" PARTNER ' j
PAPAYYA PARUTAYA GOIUDAR '
PETITIONERNO2
KOULPETH I
TALUK & DIsT:BA.GAL:~:oT--s371 Q!
2. PAPAYYA-A 2 'V __ I-
s/0 PARUTA\;YAG' --III)ARj=. ;
AGED ABOUT 48"Ii';;F~ARS,
OCQBUSINESS ' _ .
R/O WARD NO'.5.,'}~C.QUL P*ET'Ir*!.. '
BAGALKOT 537_I03._;j ~ ._ " APPELLANTS
(By Sri-.G.Bafakfish'naI"S1fiéIstry, Adv.)
I Mrs. .'Y:'.«&Vl;A'C'J:}
. " 9ART*IxIE,~R.sI-RRFIRM,
A ,G'ENERAL..MERcHANTs & COMMISSION
"AGENTs;.B'AGALKOT BY ITS PARTNER
RE3POND'ENTS 2 TO 5
I I OPP:'B-ASAVESHWAR URBAN couop. BANK LTD,
' AIJAT BAZAR, BAGALKOT»587 :01.
CNAGAPPA s/0 SANGAPPA YALAGI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCQBUSINESS
RIO OPPBASAVESHWAR URBAN
CO~OP BANK LTD
ADAT BAZAAR,
BAGALKOT 587 IOI
3. IRAVVA S/O SANGAPPA YALAGI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:BUSlNESS
R/O OPPBASAVESHWAR URBAN
CO«OP BANK LTD
ADAT BAZAAR,
BAGALKOT 587 10] -
4. SIDDAVVA
W/O PAPAYYA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
WARD NO.S, KOULPETH
BAGALKOT 587 I0]
5. RATNAPRABHA
W/OASHOK YALAGI V
AGED ABOUT 4G.YEARS,,'" .
OCC:BUSIN}_3SS«.,_ _. ~
R/O0PP.BASAVESHWARURBAN_ '
CO~OP BANK'L:Tl3-,v-A})AT._B_A2ZAA'R
BAGALKOT: 3:337 1672;
6. LAXMIBAI ' _
w/o MADEVALAY *1'-'.A-- HIREMATH
AGE:6l YEARS, 0CC;'Ho!J._sEHoLD WORK
Rxo.MULLAAoA.s;',B13-APUR. ' RESPONDENTS
'('ByVsi-i:V:»R=.D1ar.;u~, A¢ii}'.""fi5r R2 and R3)
is filed under Order 43 R 1 (C) of CPC
against' theforder dated 09.06.2005 passed in l\/Iisc.(Civil)
No.71,'/2000_'o--n the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
',Bagalkot,"' dismissing the petition filed 1.1/0 9 R4 and 9 r/w
S.ec.151" of CPC to set aside the order of dismissal
;d,t.31s,.07.2000 passed in O.S.No.163/1993 and to restore the
said_s1A.i.it on file.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the court
" delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
consent, this appeal is disposed of finally at tlie
stage itself. ._
2. This appeal is by the plaintiffs befoire/iithié
aggrieved by dismissal of the iiniiscellaneous .§.1ii[3}C’)lli(?;aEi1il:il’L’;’a’1’1ii:fllCCli”i
under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 rt/w ilgection 151′ of the Code of
Civil Procedure following” the suit of the
appellants for non;*proseoutior;::by_thetrial The suit was
filed for r6C0\rf-,r§i»voKf the herein.
3. Learned appellants submits that the case
was posted for eVidenc’eiAio»nl3llO’7.2O00 and as there was strike
in Dharwad in connection with the establishment of Circuit
Bierieh, thie:appe.l»lants were under the impression that the case
will ‘r’lot.ig”o “on account of this reason on finding that the
V _appellantv-._’was”i”iabsent, the trial court dismissed the suit for
“iv.ii*~non–Vpr0seeuti0n. On the very next day, appellants made an
._appli’cation seeking setting aside of the order passed but the
application was rejected and the appellants were therefore
}
– f
constrained to file miscellaneous petition in Misc.Civil
No.71/2000 which was also dismissed by the courthelow.
Hence, this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the responde_nt.s-2:
who strongly opposed the contenti-o’n”s*–«put’l_< fofivard ibyi'.vthve
appellants' counsel and also requested iniposition of'
'the other respondents have remained alf)sent}."r1ote of " V
the grounds put forward by ,the.."g'learned counsel for the
appellants, I am of the 'below could have
given one more opportunitvi' the«.i:'appellz;_n'ts to lead further
evidence and,as"the.:ireason._afor_the1r'vnon–appearance has been
attributed to the ilstifilzei took. place in connection with the
establishmentégiiof iCirct1_itV.:B'ench at Dharwad, under these
, circumstances, to"meet__'the ends of justice, the impugned order
iflof the_Co.ur«tpbeiI'ow requires to be set aside and the appellants
Slim.'-T' it . .
wo:;4$.,be g:ven’g;=an opportunity to lead further evidence and
~Vrespondenits also shall have the opportunity to cross–eXamine
it i ” lithe appellants or lead their evidence.
fie?
5. For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed. The
impugned order of the court below is set aside. Thelvrnatter
stands remitted to the trial court for disposal in;”‘aceordan.ce«p
with law. Both parties are directed to cooperatearidVappe.llant’s–« ..
shali not take any unnecessary adjournrr1en’t.s
give any room for defauit on Vtheir part in future. The; trialjfl
court shall dispose of the suit within..au”period of three
months from the date “e_om:_:’nence:o:_ierit-..of the proceedings
before it. Both parties ared_irec’ted:_toiliappeaii before the trial
court on ‘V
Jm/~