IN THE HIGH CQURT GE KARNATAE-(A AT ErEi:§;AE€§eR%E"' A'
DATED THIS THE 9" DAYQE,3UNEE;"2'(}"1::i:. "
BEFORE
THE H{}N'BLE MR. JUSTICE A,N.iF4EN:i.JG{3Pr5;Lfi {Ef§'§)\niE§;A.:7.:
Misceftaneous First: AD0ea':'TV_!_\ie:11{J29€v ii")!-? _2OV§A$.i._"v€.PC}3
BETWEEN: A' ' V
Sri M.R.3ayaram,
S/0 late Ramaiah;
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at Gokula... _ _ ' '
Bangalore ~ " ,.AppeHant
(By sr:.K.sfaa.sh_i_"'5:;.ra'r:
AND: """ ,
SriSida"ppa,._ ' . _
Since deceased by L'Ps ,_ '
1. Sm_t_,Venkatarnnj--a '
W/oefgateaasri Siciappa
~.Aged 'ab_out,74 years;""'
Rfat P0omap u--ra Village,
Ba ng'as!0:'rea :\2m<:h"--jraIuk.
S/0 "L;ate.fSr§v 'Sidappa,
'x__Aged a~bot;.2t 54 years,
2 R/are Poernapura Vitfagef
"«.'E';ang'E.f.§ere Nerth Taiuk.
3.} Sri \/enkataraman
T -Erie Late Sn Sidapna,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at Poomapura village,
Bangalore North Taluk.
Sml: Yeilamma
Since deceased by LRs
Srl Muthappa
Since deceased by Ll'-is
4. Smt Narasamma,
W/0 late Muthapba,
Aged about ~ major,
R/at Poornapura Village;
Bangalore North Taluk§ _
5. Sri Munlraju, 'V
S/0 late Mutha.p4p.a_,"~. g
Aged about ~grrj1aj«:.:é'r"',_. . "
ix)
R/ at P00 rn a:p"u ra. V\/'i-ll ag e,'--,3 .. .
Bangalore Ne..rtlé. T:_a|uk.'_ «. V'
6. Sri r.aun:yAaplpg_._.__
S/o Katbelepalya,'
Aged about 65 yeaarsg'
R/at Poornapura Vii-!_age,
Bangalore Nor:-hf_l"'aluk.'
. wereWW
sjo éa.tge<lYlunl'ya'ppa;
6(b)"«Sri .._fx;'en!AI§"ataramanappa,
f_s/o late Miuniyappaf
_IVE.ajor. '
a._é'€;(_V'_l"a':_'{SLmdar Nagar)
€'3.o'i<'1;§a;'vB3e:.:)ga'§'e:"e - 566054.
6( ko)"-.S ri .;__i91'u-rz4:§'swa ma p pa.
'gs,/0 fate Myniyappa.
Ageocui 34~years.
..1%e;~,:£}-35 srmgvas.
" 3/: late Muniyappa,
waged 29 years.
6(m} Sr: Siddiah,
s/0 iate Muniyappa.
Aged 34 years.
601) Sri Muniamma,
d/Q Iate Muniyappa,
Major.
6(0) Sri Ammaiah,
d/0 fate Muniyappa,
Major.
6(9) Sri Siddamma,
d/0 {ate Muniyappa,
Major.
(AH the above are_chiidre-n..._ 'V
of Late Muniya.p«p.a and are
r/a 3"' Main, _P3Qor,ETapura. 1
Sundar Nagar, L3oku!'a. x
Bangalore - 560.054) ' '
7. Sri
Aged ab'Qutfi36 yea.r"s.,.
S/0 late Si.ddappa~. V'
8. Sr; 'Mu_nira:]'a* ,
= Ag biQ_ut..e_32 yéara... *
9.» Sri eA¥Via:r1js'_ma§tha
tfiged ab'3fi«tV»_Z'3.'VV'3¢éars.
10. Mrgs' raédha.
f_Aged a.b0r.:t 33 years.
' _'The respondents No.7,.8,9 and
._ 2’10 are residing at
i?§’F§e’or, C/O Ayyappa Bakery
Braiding, Gekuta,
M.S.Ramaiah Road,
Barigaiore » 560054. “”i5i’e.spofndVVen%tig K
{By Sri.i\l.;i.Rar’nesn, Adv. for R6 (#.’¥t§flF’,’I«}i’i5i«ND’EA?’?«:i_€}}
This MFA is filed under orde:r.__4’3.V_iZuie.’§;_3ifAri}= c.r’eir>e,”~i,V
against the order dated -“‘~.{07I1i’52OQ8 pw.as.s_ed in . *
MiSCtN0¥357/2001 on the file of,>'<$\! Addl…City'_:Ci't{il Judge,
Bangalore, CCH–2.8, dismissing'-the.._» petition fiied under
order 9 Rule 9 of CPC,t'o..V_set .a'side.._the=dismissai 'order, for
default passed in O.S.128.;1_98_2 r<j'ate'dVgj12.';Og2.2OO1.
This appeal COming–.:.O:i1 for:a.gad.n1_is's'io";i' this day, the
Court delivered the'-fol|t)wing'V:«i ~
JUDGM_Elg]_"
With :c.on*$_e;nt of’tiheifie_a”rried”;counsel on both sides,
since Lt’.R is t-hVe”~a__pp_ealVVi’s heard for final disposal.
T-he Va_pp.e~l..lgan.t'”*fi_le’d__ O.S 128/1982 against the
respondentsshihri.thVe._City’ Court, Bangalore, for passing
a of tie’:-lVa.r_atl0n of his title and for? mandatory
‘§.,i’lljVLi”§”tCti”f,}_vfT~3516″Qthel’ reliefs in respect of plaint schedule
of the defendants having passed away,
-V their”ieg”al representatives are brought on record. The suit
H'”‘.’~u”‘V.i,.’irviasr..4det:reed on 13.11.1990. The defendants questioned
.’ ii~;¢:saia decree in RFA 400/1992, which was ailowed on
H9″-%:1G3§ig99 and the matter was remanded to the Triai
x
can
2*
6
Court. The appeiiant after receipt of court notice.
Sri B.\x’eerabhadrappa, advocate, who flied ”
20.012000. Sri B.\/eerabhadrapp,a….d_ied on’2:3.;;oi’;’2.t0o1.._V
The suit was dismissed for non~pro’:~:.ecs;§tion on 3U:.C3′.2E-‘–Q§.T1.’.:
3. A Miscpetition wast4’…fi”ied on
17.04.2001 under o.9,r§;9g_ CP{;’;”‘to’V…%;etjfosidetthe said order
passed in O.S.No.l28/13382AVa’nvd’i’t:o the suit. I.A.I
was filed seeking’:-_ in filing the
Misc.Petition;” _fi”!’ed._;statement of objection
and con.t-es.t¢ti~vthe’1i:;§etité.on. EX’-power of attorney holder of
the aptieilentV.dep0-sjedgasif”2P\/V-1. through whom E><s.P–1
A A 3 respondents, a power of
attorney hordeivr of 3T5
to P-3 viiere tgmarke-dA;–
“respondent deposed as RW–1,
“V”‘–.thr0.o’§;h:,.A–2§zruon1 E$$s;R’=’JZ’ to R-5 were marked. Considering
_th’eT_rixza:i’~contegntigons, and noticing the judgment passed in
R.F=A_.’34300/«1§9V2.t:;dated 04.03.1999, whereby, the Trial Court
”.__had beer: directed to dispose off the suit by end of
A ‘~.3f’Sneo3te_mber 1399,. the records of the case having been
reseived by it onfy on 31.03.2008 and there being defay in
E
*7
1
service of court notice and the absence of PW”l for <:ross-
examination on 12.e®2.:20®l as weii as on
was heid that! the petitioner is not diiigent in
the suit and observing that, there isno bo_r:a'fi–d:es»"i'n:fi–iAing:u '= 'V
the petition with deiay of about:=.two_-~irn:ont.h.s~,.'
Petition for restoration oftii-the su,_it' wasv"'7divsrnissiedL
Aggrieved, the plaintiff has fiiedthis appeal'. H' V}
4. Sri K.Shashi counsel
appearing for facts and after
referring to’ contended that, the
Court approach to the
mattervland fact that the appellants
advocate Sari».B.Veeraij~ha’d.~riappa had passed away and the
n’o”‘kn-owiedge of the adjourned dates, on
a<:<t'oont"v..4ofrdentise of his advocate, his absence being
bonaifidepé.'thj_e..'dismissal of the Misc.Petition filed for
'i..restora~tior;_i of the suit is perverse and iiiegai. Learned
A'~:i_:oVts;n's~e§ contends that; the Coorgbeiow has acted
e
2%}
fa:
/
4
.2″
mechanically ln the matter and on any \fi€W of the’:rr*:a”t_te”‘l=.5
the impugned order calls for interference.
5. Sn l\l.3.Ramesh, learned cdulnjjselgggappea’l*lrigton
the respondents, on the other ‘han–<:l_. cont_en'ded
appellant was negligent in proe.e'c~;lting"the'eu:it_:aVr;d""'in View ''
of the judgment in i2_;fA 4gQ@–,fVi"#_39'2*»-.__dated=Cl4..vd3.1999,
wherein there was a to decide the
suit, PW~1 having notgmade 'h'infll5_el«tV'_agtf'e2vi"iable for cross~
examinationgdgwfl the Court below
was for default. According
to the the petition filed seeking
restorationLébeingaunten_a'b:l:e;the appellant having failed to
makeeut suf.'-.ici'e'rlt cause for non–appearance of either
?gW,1 19.02.2001, the Court below is
the impugned order.
it have perused the record.
it The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant
— 1311519905 The decree was set-‘aside in RFA
-»v4′{)€3,/19392 on 04.031999; the matter was remitted to the
9
Trial Court to dispose off the Case within four mehths and
the parties were directed to appear before the Tria.i’a€:i’oatgrt
on 24.06.1999. The records having not been rejc’:eive_d’,: _
matter was not taken up by the Trial Courtarz»
The record of the suit was received .0
31.03.2000. The suit havingtieen taken up the
appellant entrusted the file 0.v’eei’VabhVadrappa,
advocate. Indisputedl:-v;’- was
hospitalised for, away on
22-01-2001-_. non–prosecution
on the’h’ah:se’nce of PW-1 and also
takingiinto tithe’ limit fixed for disposal of
the Caseivlde 04.03.1999 passed in Ri-‘A
400/§L”39..2.
‘ fact that Sri B.\/eerabhadrappa was engaged
by the hospitalisation of Sri Bveerabhadrappa
lgufor cohsiderable time immediately prior to his death on
A v~:lj”;>:2.0″?….2001, are not in dispute. The appellant having
some ta know of dismissal of the suit and having obtained
3
.
ya
10
certified copies has filed the E’/i§sc.Petition seeking
restoration of the suit. Except the 3″ respondent.’ o_thers
did not file objections to the Misc. Petition.
of PW«1 would show that, Sri B.\ieerabhadrVaopa’~A–l.:ha_vihg”
passed away and there being no §coh’}.m’Lijlhi°ceti.on.f’rom_Vt.h.ef
office of Sri B.Veerabhadrap’pe___ sjitalole
and hearing dates, PW–1 has hlvotepoeated
The Court below has delliat/it of about
two months, the restoré.tioh’V._VVAo.eti’ti’o’h’l’:V».’was filed. The
affidavit ‘arid”:’th’e—iijevidence of PW-1
would ltiiotxvledge of dismissal of
the oh.’ after coming to know of
the ordieeof 19.02.2001, certified copies
wereeoplield’-»ah’d’1olo”:ai.hed the Misc. Petition was filed
Evidence of PW-1 has not been
co-%_;’ectE»:.é”-«exit: oteeiated.
V In my view. the approach of the Court below to
A the”‘metter is hyoer–technicai. Indlsputedly. the appellant
had engaged the services of Sri B.\!eerabhadraooa,
E2.
ll
advocate, who passed away on 22,01,200}. There being
no communication from the office of Sri BlVeerabh’a.dV_ra_pp_a
with regard to the stage and hearing date of _
appellant or power of attorney holder have”‘iio:t]_a:p’peared:it ‘*
and the suit was dismissed for tdefa:-uitfi’
When the factual assertionsrilmadelllin’the
deposed by Pl/’V–1 are not in the Court
should have allowed tile:’p_ra’iirer;_>vA:inad’eAjiri._the restoration
petition and tal<en_the the same.
It is not there was any
deliberategggattgiialltiilg in not appearing
before allowing the suit to be
dismisseidfiLlilaintitt/app:.ei’lan’t’Jis not shown to have gained
anything on oflzhe dismissal of the suit for default.
has not been correctly appreciated. The
ap_pe_llant Tliais out sufficient cause for condonation of
_ delay. and also to allow the restoration petition. The Trial
:jCoi.irt hassfaiied to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
._’T~h:e’–T’Ariai Court has preferred technicalities as against
X.
at
E2
substantial justice and as a resuit, has passed the
impugned order, which is unsustainable.
10. The deiay in filing Misc.Petition 3s?;5aoo:ii.:is”‘éioiif
deliberte. The appellant has not ga’ine’d’hy”a
filing the restoration petition.’ The”.re1sponderi_–ts”ha~ve*:Tnot”~_
established any malafides on in
filing the restoration pvefltion ciiie’ia.t_ejd’l§:.._AThe’cause shown
for the delay constitutes it is trite that,
technicalities justice
should be compensating the
otherside’wi-t’ij’:cos:t§§i”‘ has acted vice-versa.
Under the impugned order is
unsustainable, ”
Fo”r:th:”e”iforegoing reasons, the appeai is allowed and
Afhe’~ii_i_ni§3’utj’n.edixcivrder is set–asidei LAJ filed in Misc.Petition
_ 357}”200.,i’eri’ the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore, is
u””:'”v4.”‘*–;’ai.loivy*ed””‘and the delay in filing the Misc.Petition is
_ercQndened.
ii
i
)’
‘flax’
E3
Being satisfied with the cause shown for “non-
appearance of the plaintiff eh 19.02.2001
128/1E38Z was called an for hearing; the
19.02.2001,, dismissing the suit for ho»h-prQ’s’eCu.ti_e.h”‘iisV’_’s.el:.,_ “‘
aside and as a result, the suit Vstargdsi.:’rest_e’refi tc,{f–..{ile;,i.:
subject to the appellant/;;i£Vla’i.h..tiffit”dep0sit’i’ri’gl~».ifl’cost:-5 of
RsiL0OO/~h1the Tnalcoun:p§hje»3o1fi;2d11{§wnchis
to be released in favouvrefl’del7en;;la,n’li’S–Vt[§£x”Tl5 -the LR’s.
The parties,,_a_’re before the Trial
Court on tu:,rt’her orders.
The »Tt0._Tpvroce-ed with the suit from the
stage atiwhich it was as on 19.02.2011 and
deciqe’ the suit’ eapveditiously and at any even’: within an
tjut.e_@xr lir_fiilt.o.f4l’4._Vmonths commencing frem 0237,2011.
.rRet_u.rhlithe LCR Trial Court forthwith,
§£fe
§§§§{§3
saC*