High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt.Mangalamma W/O Mahadevaiah vs Smt.Mallamma on 23 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mangalamma W/O Mahadevaiah vs Smt.Mallamma on 23 August, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
     

/_>x, -.\-4.va.~.-.',::  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
BEFORE:

THE BON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHA?URE,rAK

WRIT PETITION No.18026 g§~2@og ;GM?Cé¢lAfiA
WRIT PETITION Nos.28399~40g*g§ 2009 «.=.'T

BETWEEN:

1.

fRavikiran,A"

Mangalamma, _ fl .
W/0. Mahadevaiah,A'gA _H
Aged about 36 years}_ '

Radha, _ ;_, «_ 1
D/O. Mahadefia;ah,"=

Aged abafit Zfifyeaxa;

Tara, _ _ A.' _u.e f
D/o.vMahadevaiah,WA'
Aged abput 17 years}

"S/df'Mahadevaiah,

QA*Aga§Kabpfit 14 years,

'¥s1;§§s.3;§"4 minors,
AaRep,.by their mother and

éhaturai guardian Mangalamma~P1.

'n,_A1i*are at C/0. Joseph,

Brahmasandra-Karikere Road,

A'Brahmasandra, Kora Hobli,

Tumkur Taluk. PETITIONER/S

[By Sri. G.R.Prakash, Adv.)



 

5. It is relevant to note that the 1"
petitioner is the daughterwinwlaw of the respondent

and petitioners 3 and 4 are minor children of the 3″

petitioner. A minor should not be _pnt ltd’-dnya

injustice for the negligence ,of jits”iguardianiu

Furthermore, so far as the guardian is concerned, it

is stated in her affidaéitr prodnced :#hatWM§hé his ”

suffering from polyp bleeding, fine to which she was
admitted in the hospital.i She”is a person from the
village background and has no worldly.Rnowledge. It

is under these gircdmstandéé_£fiat she did not file

the written statement jand :the’ objections to the

application’ within _the “time allowed. by law. The

delay in filing the written statement and objections

V to the application, in case of exceptional grounds

l; are made out by the party, could be condoned and the

written statement and objections to the application

can be permitted compensating the delay by awarding

u’*pcosts.’tpd So, taking into consideration these

i%vcircumstances, I am of the opinion that the

R~. petitioners have made out exceptional grounds to

uifile written statement and also objections to the

application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 and 2 CPC on

payment of reasonable costs. So far as the costs