High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner vs Vaman on 2 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Vaman on 2 December, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
RSA No.5103 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER' 
BEFORE iii "C
THE HOBPBLE MR.JUs{1*io#3' 1'3_v.S_.PA'JA.i'.:I_':i.~    1%
REGULAR SECOND AppEA'1_,No.V_és103'/goes 2 " 
BETWEEN: C T V' 
The Commissioner, .  '~ '_ 5  _4 V 
Hub1iDharwad Municipal,    T'
Corporation, '~ _  1   j_
Dharwad.     :   ...APPE'.I..I..ANT
(By Sri.  ':3 .  arth; V eate)

S / o_N_araya'na Mudakavi,
Age Maj or,

  "  - R/at Hf."No'; 1&3, saahankeri,
 T GoaVR.ovad,'«D'i1arwad--8. ...RESPONDENT

T-hisviieguiar second appeal is fiied under Section

I00 ofvthe Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment
‘ and_ deéree dated 21.04.2007 passed in R.A.No.48 / 2003
_on_ the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. D11.) 83 CJM,
Dharwad, dismissing the appeal, confirming the

RSA No.5103 of 2008

judgment and decree dated 19.12.2002 passed in
O.S.NO.95/2001 on the file Of the I Additionaiiflivil
Judge (JD) 85 JMFC, Dharwad, decreeing the s’uit’~–fi1*ed
for declaration permanent prohibitory injun;etior1_’_o’and..¢
mandatory injunction. ‘

This regular second appeafvalong Ki
coming on for orders this day, :;the:.Coj:,11″t» d.el’i–ve1?ed_
following: ” -. ”

JUDQQENQ’

There is a delay of in filing’: second
appeal. A A Z

2. The Joint the appellant-

Corpoi1:ati–on “‘a_ffidavit. In paragraph 2 of the

affidavit, that the certified copy of the

pg “””R,A_,pNo.48/2003 (wrongly shown as

in the affidavit) was obtained on

thereafter, the papers were handed

over toi’g_the Corporation by the counsel, however, the

“:i:”‘pape_rs were mixed up with some other file and after

2 thorough Search the concerned officiai got the papers

RSA N0.S;1.03 of 2008

and immediately arrangements were made to send the
papers to the Corporation Advocate at Bangaloreld.

3. The assertions made in the ‘
bald. The affidavit of the concerned §;:’sc§i:’sn¢ep+p_d°’
filed. No dates are mentioned in to
the records were traced were the”
advocate. Such casgal it long and
inordinate delay of this regular

second appeal be so i

Hence the éllfiledlfor condoning the delay
deserves to be7disrnissetfi.lXccordingly, the same is

dismissed. Conseq1iently,~wtlhelappieal is also dismissed.

Sd/W
JUDGE