IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE-..: .._V
DATED THIS THE 15%: DAY 0;? Ff3BRUARY,.i'l _
BEFORE
THE HGITBLE MR.JITSTICfi{'1'1i.§ 3l?«:LAEV ' Pé{
RFA.No.1411"C}'i?.,20d8v- V
BETWEEN:
1.
(By Sri.SangainéSh. )
The 81:31. Lanai Acquisitioh u
Bangaiere Development; ~ % 1» __
Bangaimu --- 556 903.3'. " ' -
The Bangaicfcf.
Repmsentécjfi ¥;iy';its Co1n"mjissi0nci*, '
Kumam%~Park% , _ Sa_:1k_ey Raad;
Bcngagltxru _-A-" 5&9 . ' . . . .Appe11az'1ts
l!v°I;1j,?:'g:V ' I." V
2: '1'
Misc.Cv1.IA85;_/2(}(59_ filed by the appeiiants
praying to,,c§§jiédone of 1324 days in filing the appeal.
It in the afiidavit, Smt.T.R.Rajeshwari,
;icivocate,A was _enti*§1§ted to conduct the case on behalf of the
' she"di_:ti not ixlfarm the EDA about the judgment and
'It. also stated, subsequently Smtflajcshwari,
flkdvccatei was removed fmm the pane} and the matter was
.VTVLe:f1tI*uéted to some other advocate and he obtained the
L/
certified copy of the judment and decree. It is also stated,
the BDA Came to knew about the judgment and A'
the month of May 2005, after receipt of letteii *
Sri.K.T.Na11junde Gowda, Advocate. iitcise 'Au
efforts were made to secure the ftazgordst "
documents from Smt.R:3gieshwari,Vadf}'ecate; e1_nd--"about ° V
eight months time. It is aisvo-' 'cepiee of the
judgment and decree were not ;_t:"e:3e;ii;:@d'v:i.thei*efore, there is
delay in fifling the ap;:ea1.
3. The e mi has filed objections
contending tl*1a£"iiave not expiained the delay
aiidthe 1>"{ies'pondentVVeifter: obtaining the certified copy of the
judgmeiit sent representations to the appellants
Sri.K.T.Na.:1junda Gowda vide notices
_-Ticdeted 6.5.ui2Q(3'iE":V. it has been received by the appellants on
f 10.5.2605 the appeil-ante had the
A"'4".}{t;o'§v1eLig'e" of the judgment and decree. It is also stated,
V4' *vSgflt.IH§e1jeshwari had applied for the certified copy on 8.2.2005
L/
and it was obtained on 28.2.2005. It is therefore, the first
resgjondent has prayed to dismissal of the a.ppli(:atioI1. _ V
4. The learned counsel for the appeilaxztslo§)I:tel'ldedV--w..' 'V
that the appellants have explained
cause has been shown to condone the delay t:1je£efofe,l *'
the delay may be condoned. ?lacix§'¢g"'1;ei§a:1ce decisions
of the Ho11'b1e Supreme ~-- SCW
page 4491, 1988 son this Court
reported in ILR submitted that
sufiieient cause lfi1:!.;$tV_ liberally. He also
submitted that ;§ub1ie_ "ls involved and therefore,
liberal vievgj may ta_1_{ef1.
this, the learned counsel for the
mspofidehte that there is delay of nearly four years
filing the and the delay has not been explained
.eat1dVV'tl1e1efore, the delay cannot be condoned. He
that the appellants have filed false aflidavit
they had no knowledge about the judgment and
decree. He also submitted that the counsel for the
had applied fer the certified copy on 8.2.2005 'A
obtained on 28.2.2005 itself. Further he ,$ub111ittee.. " ' 'V
15* respondent had sent notices to the
advocate on 6.5.2005 flxe the
appellants the judgxnexst ‘Passed in
O.S.No.1582/1997 and cannot
contend that they _no::’ ‘-“_1’J13.dgn1ent and
decree. In 021VeӤ1aced reliance on
the following’ 5:. ” ‘V ‘V H A
(1) 199′: sec A
:2: ,1%3%}m2ts0¢aimset0ee1245-
Lie’; ‘therefere,.:su.i;mit{ed«-that the deiay cannot be czmdoned.
§VV’11%1ve’eafefu11y considered the submissions made
bythe eefinsel fox fihe parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is,
the delay needs to be condoned?
L/
8. It is relevant to note, the suit is for declaration
and permanent injunefion. The judwent and deereejéésjiiéie
been passed on 5.2.2005. The appeal has
20.12.2003. There is inordinate delay; $132+; c1a§%s«:;a.e
the appeal. The delay has been expieined.
matter was entrusted to Smt.Rajeefivza1i, she V
did not inform the appel1ani:’s.. decree
and the counsel was Changed the appeliants
came to mow abotiifiilae It is also
stated, the the judment and
decree on1yVV:”in “thew 2005 when they received
communication’ –«fr0mxu Nanjunda Gowda, advocate.
“Va epeiiants eanae to know about _the
only in the month of May 2005, then
M31150, in filing the appeal and it remains
-j_.’_;’;:,1I1d-‘e:;plaine:ik”:. Nothing has been done subsequent to May
seated, it took about eight months to get the records
. S?mt.RajeshWari, advocate. While it is true, sufiicient
should be Iiberaily construed, but, that does not mean
{/4
is set aside. Consequently, the
condonation of delay filed in the High _
stand rejected and the Miscellaneous % ‘ ‘
shall stand dismissed as barred-‘by’*t1’mét.’ }_:\I¢ ‘c?,;sVts.–f’.V
Appeal ailowecl.
9. In the present case;:é:bso1i1ta1y,;»». ? no
acceptable reason to conddng-:_ th_<:':"defiy. "'T§1eréf6fe,"'tirxe delay
cannot be condoned.
Accordingly’ ‘V dismissed and
consequently is
, sal-
IUDGE