High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri C Narayana Gowda vs Karnataka Road Transportation on 31 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri C Narayana Gowda vs Karnataka Road Transportation on 31 May, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
W'? 10735/2011

{N THE HIGH COURT OF MRNATAKA AT §AN@;xLoAg3;i_:""T._

DATELD THIS THE 31%'? DAY 0;? ivimz 29:1  f  A' 

BEFORE
THE HQNBLE 1\zfR.JUST£CEf§j  -I 'A  . : 
W.P.No.1o7s5/2o 1;gafigipfi) ». .
BETWEEN: V  

Sri C/.Narayana Gewdag

Aged about 45 years,

S/0 Chowdappa,   ;

R/at N.698/L Vmobha Raacl,  '

South 6* Cross, Srirainpei, f ''

Devaraja Mcxhafia,      * 

Mysore, __ 4'  'V ._;"   ,;PETITIONER

{By Sri p.N.Mg;;moh,;:;,1';a:;iy.;   "
AND: A

Kamataka Roaci T1*ans1:~0fta'ti01f1'--- 
Corpsratian,  = V   
1'v'£y:3or<: Ur_E:éan_ Divis1'0n§ " V
Ban.n1m3¥f1:':a§? f\',f}"S0§'E?,'"' '  ..... ..

Ff.ep. E;r}i its '::)iiri;s:§Lo"r;.g1 Centronezz  RESPONDENT

 is flied unéer Artiicieg 226 S: 22'? 0f the

.V  '~..~C€}flSEii£i§_iQfi cf L'i~;1'<:Tiias praying to quash éhéi Qrdez" dated
 21.261} f;2.ss3ed':é'n {hie appiicatien fiisci under Szection 5 of the
.._j'_"§»_:1:f1':ii'.5.t:ic3:"2 Av:ure:»E and

 em  

his pstgiiiezz Caméng can fer prsiiniinazjg héaaring" SEES {E3}/3

 '€j*<3:1:*': Izzafieé the §bE%ev¢i::g':



wp £0785/201$
2

ORDER

1. Pe:Lii;i<:sner is aggrieveé by the Qrder dated

passed by the sear: beiow csndmzizlg ihé delay of

filing the misceflanesus p€ii{§{}I'} seeking; ti)":33¢E'–«¢as;i'dr€,{"t?;evVex»

parts judgment and decree that is passecfagaifisi, "

in the suit filed by the petitioner here.§fi"vin S

2. Th€ I’€SpOI1d€1″1’E théA Qcparte
judgment, moved thug :?;:¥ariéjéidgxizent and decrers passed. they had iaker;

~_s’§€ps to fiie..’£V}”‘r-5; fnisceilazieous petition seeking to set 331216 the

c * 8:22:25». ‘ L

C{>L::’t, bsfigw has 8;€3C€§§,E’3§ 836 ézxpiazzaéécézz e:3f§%:-223$ E3}?

€E2.=r3« :”€s§3:}d€m:E€5§R'{‘§ zmfi 335:3 éézgzéfisiizésci iizs cieéay csf IE3 $22553

p 4,,&v’*”

J ,,
,.–/f as
§/

3.

VVP 1eO785[-$33311

in fiiing the miseellaneeus petitien Seeking to ee:_e.s:i’d.e ex?

pane judgment and decree by impesing ‘e§7.vF€e.50Q.X}’.– ” V

4. I have heard the Ieameci Couneefi.forffiae pTTeéii’i€}ner

perused {he maieriais on record.

5. A carefui perusal cf elear
that the Court below has apeiiefii explanation
offered fer eendoneticée eaf and
has accepted the lack ef knowledge
of the tranefe:”*’efT§ii!e to the other, which
resulted in eieeree and the consequent
delay in appreéiithéng the miscellaneous petition
eeeking aside “i3VV1:ev____e;;;par£e judgment and decree. The
in the facts and circumstances ef

{he ease-j_’e>e Ch £?;iIf§1C~i:§3}”i§§€d as mega} or unjust.

_ A3 fie eas’eeAi.Se’fnade out far interference in exercise of :he

wriéjurisdietiezz, ‘zine wrif; peiitien is dismissed.

eefe
geese