EN mg 37:53 mam' <3? %£;%R1'€ATA}'<LA AT %
IDATED was THE 9% DAY OF' JL:::;,"_f;3r)Q33j: 1 _: "
BEFo§§ f' &
THEE HOWBLE MR.JEj$'f§CEéVR'éW'
WRYI' PEFYFIQN No.
BETWEEN : J 'A ;
Smtmeenakshi, _ V
W/'0 K.S.KGtré$h,'_'-- '_ g
Aged &'{'3G3.fi..4§:5 yfég_rs~, _
R/at B0015 No-.'4;6"1,'*-. . " A :
4*' Maiiififiaég 1?:E'i%00r;' _ "
Ne:-ax" E€?azI1a: §'30.:fV Ci1'{%1s§,
p.J.E$:r¢::$ion, % . . . . ?ETET'£C}NER
giay SE~;A%aA:§ma,§§;».%L& Mgxaafifi, AD'v"O{3§'}"E2S.}
%%%%%
_ V: . T' Ema. ,1N'ir'm_s.1a,
._ $5!::e«Sv.§};§3i:iiva11a11dapp&,
' __Age:{i: 1%-§r:jT(31';
-- ' V 2. Sri G, Shivanafadappa,
" +..{_§.ge:E1: Major;
'iésth residing at }f}.N0.2?i36,
"G3nga.K'r21pa", 2" Main,
be/i.C.C. 'B'B3(;=(:k, Davazigfzrfit. . . . . RESPONDENTS
{BY SR§.?R,A}3HUL1NG NAVADGI, ADVOCATE.)
at-‘:\’*’k
<sf.%%g~
Thie Wrif. Petition is fiied under Articie 122'? Vftfifthe
Constimtien of India praying :0 can for recorcis4'1<e_§a;ting
to R.A.No.131/2603 en the file of the Pr}.(;3ivi.'i"V«}j;1fiigew.«
(Sr.D:1.), Davanagere, peruse the s:z;ii1e,_ '
epportunity ef hearing, quashf set aside_' '=.tvhe. ' Qrder' ._
eassed on §.A,No.1 filed 11I}d6;F»-S66-iZiGI1"'5' _1f1;fi: I§_1ade_’*:”hAe~efg)1l0wi:1g:–
E
The pefitieffier ..hefei:1 f1§eei[“zi:”””s’§eit seeking for a
deCreee’ti’e(;l:»iiiiI1g’A “&e”‘the’6w’1ier in possession to the
‘B’ Scfieduie’ _:pe1};:1anent injunction and other
c<mseq11en"t§a1"1*e1iefS;V_ V '
'file by its judgmem: and decree
– dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the
seiee, preferred an appeal to the Pr1.Civi1
J@JudgeV-{$r.Dn.), Davangere, in R.A.N’0.131/”2003. An
” ‘gipgfiicatioia under Section 5 of the Limitafiee. Act was
wceade eeelzing fer eendonatien of delay in fiking the said
{§~g,’,4f\~»«.._
..3_.
appeai. The Appellate Court, While considaring the said
applicafian for condonation of dslay of 9{) days, r<s:;jr::::teti
the same and c011seq1ie;1'{lfy" the appeal
dismissed. Aggieveé by the': same, the peiiiiozier "hVa':; V'
flied this petzitian.
3. It is the centended fi14at i-_he pfifififiiiéfv
ShOW11 sufficiem: cause for céfiiiéfiatiofi’ “d%*;iaj?I:1I1VV:fi1iI1g
the appeal and hencég .fi§ngV ihV€: appea}
ought has?-re ?;.;.z:”‘;<–"':I1"'-_CaI1d61"1é3–:i'§ Tim pfititioner has
examined" _'i:h<'::_ and has produced thc
d{::<:1,111_1e11t*s"~€:.o 'es£a.biis}i'siJ§ficieni cause far thé delay in
'~ a§3peaAA1x.'V ' —– -A "
perused the impugned order of the
Ap§<:*.i1a'{;7e' The Appeilata Court while passing the
. . i§J}13}lgI:I€€§ erder, attemptsd to fiild reason for the deiay
' :;.z:°Véa<§h and evary day in fiiing the apprise}. The Appefiate
T V' has adopted 3 highly technicai View while
disposing off the said EA. The abservatiorz 0:" 'the
Appeiiate Court that "the burden is on the
ShOW each days delay in pI'f3f(i'I'I'ii1g K V'
eatsisfaetien 0f the Cou;rt":
unsustainable. The petitieiier Whéts eX,a§.:1ii1ed” {he
witnesses and produced :.nefiiie:é;1’eertif1eeQie:hete’;’;§teVVehaw
éuhe delay in filing t}2e’£f1e same,
the Appellate Qnurt, technical
View in the said LA. It is
needless rights of the
parties; a highly technical View
in the hitizaéfier’ “fie1’Lieiz1g ta condone the deiay,
whey: ‘$1..:fi’1eie111:V_ Cause is shown, W(){11(i not meet the
:e:*:x<_1e afjilsiiee.
:éV1E«”‘1.::f;__1*’i;’I:ee aforesaid reasons, I pass the foliowing
. order:
V’ ” * (a) the impugned order passed by the learnetji
Pr1.Civii Judge (Sr.D11.), Davangere, in
R.A.N0.13 1/2003 is quashed.
{bj LA. filed by me petitionm’ under
the Limitation AC1; is hereby a1}o=y%%§d,
deiay in filing that said appeal is ‘V ”
(cg R.A.N0.131 /2003 is rm;~€¢ ut7:o. fi1é-
Appeflate Court is.;d;jI’€c1:’E’:=f1_”t:e hear”‘–:;fic:1 %»
off the appeal on 3 V V. S V
Writ Petition dis;-p0sedVA afi’ _é;_cCOr§1ing1y;~v…
w.w~:«<::v~00
gflgf _' _