IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23TH DAY or FEBRI.L'§;:i§Y';''V.2§11i3. .
BEFORE,'
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE;'_'_A~.;S.ALBOIAAEKA--L.jVV'
CRP NO'.L1uO0V6/20(i__§j . _
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YALLAWWA" W_/fOVB.Ié--1,I_MARAO' MUTAGEKAR
AGE MAJQR, 0:20; HOURs.E .HQ:LD WORK
R/ 0 MLICHANDI «V1LJ.,A(:,3,,
TQ &'D1_sT BEL.GAiLjJ2\k1V--. *
2. SHRI"N.fié'.RAYAN_ as/0 BI-IIMARAO MUTAGEKAR
AGE: '1VIAJ1OR"0C'C_1FI.OUSE HOLD WORK
R /0 MUCHANDI'--~VILF;AGE
TQ '&.__DIST"BELG.A"_UM
3. .¥,é.H12.1 NAN'DU___$;O BHIMARAO MUTAGEKAR
AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
A » R/0 MUCHANDI WLLAGE
DIST' BELGAUM
4. SHRI, SURESI-I S/O BHIMARAO MUTAGEKAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
.. R"/'O MUCHANDI VILLAGE
"TQ 82; DIST BELGAUM
" sou SIDDAWWA D /0 BHIMARAO MUTAGEKAR
AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
3:
f»
TQ 82; DIST BELGAUM
KUMARI RENUKA D / O BHIMARAO MUTAGEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC AGRL
R/O MUCHAEVDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM
KUMARI KANTA D/O BHIMARAO _
AGE :I\/IAJOR, OCC AGRL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM
SHRI MALLAPPA S / O APPANI\IA_CHO'i,T_GALE " ' I .
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AG-RL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM
SMT. NE1\/IAKKA'~W/_O?.NAGAP}?A'AEX/IBOJI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC-LAGRL? _
R/O MUCAHANDIVILLAGE-_ | .,
TQ & DIST,:_:,}3ELGA;UM
SH R1: GORALA. O'_R1\:I:t1i\V_CI':APPA_ AMBOJI
AGE: MAJOR, O_C'C,: AGRL
R / O MU'cHAN'O1 VILLAGE
" _; TQ 81; 'DIST BELGAUM.
S"1--iR:, DEVAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AMBOJI,
I MAJOR, Occ: AGRL
R'/'«Q;MU.CHANDI VILLAGE
G' TQGRLJIST BELGAUM.
'SI-IRI LAXMAN S /O NAGAPPA AMBOJI,
A * AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
I 'L TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM.
I I13.
SHRI CHANDRAKANT S / O NAGAPPA AMBOJI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE
A
'V
22.
24.
25.
26.
TQ 82; DIST BELGAUM
SHRI BHARMA S/O BALAPPA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
R/O MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM.
SMT SUBHADRA w/o SI]3v'DA1?fP:'\,V AMBGJI,
AGE: MAJOR, occ; AGRL
R/0 MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 5:, DIST BELGAUNL.
SHRI LAXMAN S,/O SIDDAPPALAAMBOJI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL," ~
R/0 MUCHANDI"'JILLAGE=, ' [
TQ & DIST BELGAUM.
SHRI C5'-SI?)'l3xA.1:?'PA"A1VI*}3:0JI,
AGE; 'I\/IAJ '
R/0 Ix./,{UCHANI)I«..VII;L-AGE,Vi;
TQR"8a..1j'i;ST°E3ELGAUM.
S:'HRI,G_S'Ui\T1GL" /'AGV,:Gs~njI,)ARRA AMBOJI,
AGE; MAJOR, Gcc; AGRL,
R/0 MU'CHAND1 VILLAGE
3 _; TQ. 8:, DIST BELGAUM.
PINKI D/O SIDDAPPA AMBOJI
AC--._E:~ MAJOR, occ; AGRL,
. "G.-.__R/O"_'»1\/ELZGCVHANDI VILLAGE,
A TQ ,a;A;:;1sT BELGAUM.
28,
SHRI SIDRAI SHIVARAY s/0 BALARRA DEMANI
A AGE :I\/IAJOR, OCC : AGRL
A :9.
A j$R/0 MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM.
SHRI MALLAPPA S / O APPANNA CI-IOUGALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL,
R/O MUCI-IANDI VILLAGE,
A
TQ 8:. DIST BELGAUM.
2. SMT SHUSHILA W/O SIDRAI METRI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL
R/O AMBEDKAR GALLI,
MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 8:3 DIST BELGAUM.
3. SOURENUKA w/0 SHIVAJI KAMBLE, *
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRL, 1' A
12/0 KUDREMANI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DIST BELGAUM.
4. sou LAXMIBAI w/0 RAJU~_DAfS ..
AGE: MAJOR, occ: AGRL,
R/O A1\/EBEJDKAR GALL1",--~._ '-
MUCHANDI VILLAGE,
TQ 85 DEST BELGAUM
5. THE cHA1RMAN;A7,
UCHIT P'RA'$AD NILAYA,
;\VAUcHA:xs;:)..1%vILLAA'(:rE,E A
TQ an DEST'I-$ELGAU§\g£
5. .KALLAPPA:RUDi?A'i°PA MUCHANDI,
_; AGE: M}*mF__OR, c;-cc :AGRL,
' R10 31 :23 D OLI',--'TQ:BELGAU M
rizif .13 MASEKAL
AGE;:.__MAJOR,
R/.0 KALAKAMB
" TQV EELGAUM
RESPONDENTS
AE(13y’AAs;~1.: R MKULMRNEADV FOR 121-4)
“4
this regard it is contended that even on earlier
occasions the Trial court had imposed the cost._a~gai_nst
the plaintiff for not proceeding with the
said cost had not been paid, a_s…su_ch, ;thle”
lost the right to prosecute the ;”rnat_tler.
the order sheet is pointeld._V:to..V_shoiipthatl was”?
imposed on 24/7/2093 learned
counsel for the petitioner’ judgement of
the Hon’b1e’.S.u’prem;elll¢o_iiirt.lVinl”_:i2§ll1(if;liAlR KAR R 242
(Manohar;’SilngV Ors.). It is therefore,
conter:d’ed.llAl.pl’:4§lr llcoulnsel that the reasons
assigriedll and as such the Lower
Appellate’ have dismissed the Appeal.
if learned counsel for the respondent
ho’iveV§éI»ll”S€.eia;ls’Vito justify the orders passed by the Court
-V belhowiltllllis contended that even though the Lower
Appellate Court has directed for restoration of the suit
the same has been made subject to payment of the cost
and also the time frame has been fixed for disposal of
the suit. Said order passed by the Lower Appellate
f
3.
Q
Court is in consonance with the View expressed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GP. Srii/a__sltava
Vs. RK. Raizada and others, reported in
887. Hence, it is contended tha_t…i.t__cloesnot–:§j:alll”‘fo_r.panyl
interference.
4. In the light of have
perused the order lllhe Lower
Appellate Court while,..t.al<ing'._nopte'"§ffg?i.p§\l–l"contention has
also referred: relating to the
explanation.Vtoiteredl on the date of
dismiszsa1'_ this regard, lower Appellate
Court :'refelri*edl'.to and thereafter has taken
note,' 'or thel"'-eyiden-:e of PW.1. Ultimately, while
C.'Conljsiciveringl'-the aspect as to whether the plaintiffs
an opportunity, the explanation put
–V forth pishacclepted. The lower Appellate Court has taken
note, of the normal situation where the litigants in rural
areas would reply on the instruction given by the
“counsel with regard to their appearance in the Court.
Therefore, on taking note of this aspect the Lower
3\$Qr”*”I
Earlier order has merged with the subsequent order and
therefore, by that fact alone the opportunity cannot be
denied.
6. Further, with regard to grant of opport:u:r1vi.ty
to prosecute the matter, it is no doubt true,
was a some lapse on the pajfthof i
explanation for the same: has:4’beie.n acce_pted’~
Lower Appellate Court that’at’oo by and’
also by indicating suithiis:itojfb.e coznipleted within
the time frame. When” have been
imposed__ anVd’-“35.-Then»’op’pvo_rtunity is granted it is as per
the Supreme Court, wherein it is
heyld it that opportunity could be granted by imposing
. Such _C’Q’Iidv.ifii(_)1’1. Hence, I see no error in the order
~piasseid Jloower Appellate Court.
2 , Accordingly, petition being devoid of merit is
A dismissed. No order as to costs.
i
In View of the dismissal of the revision petition
Misc. 100600/O9 is also disposed of.
Vmb