V. HO} .. _____ .. v
3 = fl'l'1m1ku:r District - 5?'? 200.
*r.v.Naga;:-aj
ms THE HIGH mum on KARNATAKA AT ggrzigatgfis T MA
saws THIS THE ism DAYGF AU<3L1s'E«2 QG3%%
BEFORE A A' j' . " k
THE Hormm MR.Jm§*'rz§3E fit. vAmr~;:)A"":, " S
CIVIL Rsvzsmxs; Pl<3'I'I'I'1£§ §'--I9i{:¢208lt2i)f}8~
EETWEEN';
S/0. Poojari'h:1ud1:aiah"~; _ - '
Since !~!"e5;;s*-- *
1(a) Nanjaiaaméfl" :
W/.¢.?3 116. "
V. . V
(By Sri T.Pra.kash, Advofiafe}
ANS:
1..
T.R.Prasad V A
Shxfimwfimmf ;
Aged abofiit 33- _igo=-,ai*$ % V'
T.R.H.é;tish"_. % _ %
S/Vow..Rai:gést:';E§1;1}"«.. " ' A'
Aged abmzit, 35'y€«3I*S*
am. V1773: Village
Bagur «Homi, Clfizannamyapama Taluk
Hassaz: iDistrictl5'i+3 1.16.
V é {Kii;*%hnegdw<;V1;éV'
, _ Late: Nanjegowda
« , 3 ahegt 40 years
@ Jayamma
. "W/0. 'Fianigaswamy {{1} Rangegoewda
"~«.,.Ag¢:x1'a13é)ut 45 years
Respondents 3 6:, 4 are 1*] a:
Villaga
n ‘T jfiodihalli Dakle 8:. Post, Bagur Hobli
V ” ~. filhgannaxayapatna Taluk
Hassa11.District–573 116. Respondents
Lax Nexus, Advocates for R1; R2 as R4 are Served;
.. ‘ Sriyuths
V.Rama3h Babu Ga H.N.Sunil Kumar:
M/s.cha1apati1y 85 Sxiaivasa, Advocates for R3)
This reviaion petition is fiied under sectiém’ E15
against the order dated 16.02.2008, passed _in’~vMie-ceilaneous
No.1/2905, an the 1126 of the .’3ivi}—.&Ju~§ige. (S:i.Dn;}f2at=
Channarayapatna, allowing tha petiticn fiied under’ Orderr. R’u_1r: .’
1’7 Z’/W section 15: CFC, for setting aside the ‘<ji:*de:<of' dismiséal. (if.
O.S.No.3?'/I993 dated 27.09.1999 on the file of :1'::–%;~,.(3ivi} .Ii;d"ge
(Sr.Dn.} at Holenaraaipnzra 83 etc _
This reviszion petitien ooming c)n' fo1jadniissaéfjizfl thiéi day, the
Court made the foliawingr . .
Ct EA :1 .% ‘
Though th¢:”z1;_attcr”ié;’ it is takma up
for finai diggoétfigl bf Counsel for
‘I’ii1g::j3§iLf£7tiV:3»11_:é1<s9,_ Wfigre. _ds:.3f£:nda11ts in 0.S.No.3'?/ 1993,
on the at Holellarasiptna. The suit
was flgifzti 1"£és§IQi1d'§:nt.$ h;arei11. On completion of pleadings,
iéfiiucs and evidence of plaintiffs was
an applicatiozl under Order XVIII Rule
1'? was made by piajntiffs for permission to
evidence. The said appfiwfion was ailowed.
plaintiffs did Hat it-/ad fuxthcr evidence. The lcamm
Judge clismissad the suit for nompmsecution. Aficr a
' period of five years and four manths, plaintiffs filed a petition
'[\7 .
umzier Cinder IX Rule 17 r/w 151 cm in N
The learned Judge aceeptecl the petition and asfiie _
order of dismissal for nonj=pibee<2uf:.§Qn_:. [n1'ad§:'–f}
0.3. No.3'?/ 1993. Thelefoie, defe1i(ia1i §$A' : '._Ai'3efo;€\§ ~ .,
Court.
3. The leamed we-mid submit
application for aside’ ef for non.
prosecution four months
from the miserably failed to
estabfi.-Si} filing the application.
4. ;§’i3.e 1eaz§:1ecVl 1231′ plaintiffs would justify the
i1npug,ne:iA.o1t3eI=;» AA V’ V’
. _ V” ie ‘seen the impugned order, the suit was
‘*fefVV:tj()i$~p1’0s9ecufion for the fiiilmt of plaililiifs to
adduee evidence.
Theieaiiied Judge instead of dismissing the suit for
V’1{i§>:1g_1;;:fl;34)secuiio:1, should have pasted the ease for evidence of
–..”V “defi~:ndants. It is not a ease where piainfifis have mt
., jadduced any evidence at all The learned Judge -in
is/£isc.No.1/2005, noticing this infirmity, eondongd 3:5
and restored the suit
6. Considering thfi facts and of ,
and also having regard to ci§smj7é§salVV’:é§fV for ‘V V
nonj-pmsecufion is withgut I ai1ici7,,th:;::§ opinion
the Court below has irlegtflazity
in setfing aside: that prtlcrbi’
7. wouki submit
plaintiffs 1–;a€v:~; the pmccedrings
to ha1a:$s – s_’1:i.t_’is pending since 1993 and
requires
53–. 1:1 t1;é the folknviugh
ORBER
2 petition is dismiszsm-ti. However, the trial
Cduxfgis tn decide the suit within a period of six
‘ months’ the date of receipt of copy of this order.
v SN}:
Sd/-
Iudgé