High Court Karnataka High Court

The Spl Lao Ukp Jamkhandi vs Malakappa Balappa Madar on 9 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Spl Lao Ukp Jamkhandi vs Malakappa Balappa Madar on 9 July, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
 Athani 'i.'a'iLik'"

IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA

cracurr BENCH AT DHARWAD    A

DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY of ;utv,em3 f =   

BEFOR.E.4__ % A  
THE i~iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  i'1"a'Ei¥_i|:'CEZ§*V..V3I(;«V.€_i»gy#V  i
QR P_   
Berweew    I   

The Special Land A:_<:qGie§tioni«_Officer   ~~ 
U.K.P.    'V     V
Bamkhandi 1

 ....  _  '    "  ...Petitioner
 [$mt;_..K. 'zlifiyéevethl, Govt. Pleader]
AND I. . .    ..

1. Sri Mal.ekappe"'BeIapp~a Ah'viaVcieVr
 '.59e¢_*'3'P9"* 5° Ye"=""5.ie %%%%% .. »

2;:_Bi1i;m-fa_ppe isaiieppe Madar
Age; ai3o_£iti_A4v2' years

Both ..,feside.et: ifofiilshirahatti
...Respondents

[R1 and 2 are served]

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the

CPC”against the judgment dated 2.12.2002 passed on IA No.1 in
‘ LACA No.25 of 1999 on the fiie of the II Additional District Judge,
Belgaum rejecting IA. No. I filed under section 5 of the

” Limitation Act, seeking condonation of deiay in filing the appeal

and consequently dismissing the ap:t’;eai–._A.filed’..’V.l_agalnst=–.udtvhaet.t
judgment and award 20.3.99 pass_e’d..in LAC l~to.1lfi3 ‘vof«–v;l9§6 on». ‘

the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn;*)..VV”end Asst. Sessidas Judge,
Athani partly allowing the Refere_n’c:a_ ‘P_etitlon~.for enhanced
compensation. ” ” ”

This petition coming on lfinal’V:’h’earlln*ajthl’s day, the Court
made the following: -_ ‘V ”

This petltlodisVIdlvret;t_edt:’a’g~aln:st the judgment and order
dated 2″” o.gcemai;’l*,*’.2.oo2j passed- by the Court of 1: Additional

District Judge; aéigaum’lin’.tAL.A;~:§.tAppeal No.25 of 1999.

‘below….dismlssed the petitioner’s IA for the

condon.ation–.__o~ffdielay of 172 days in filing the appeal;

t;onseq;uenltl3rvthéj also stood dismissed.

No” cogent explanation is forthcoming for the delay in

the affidavit filed in support of IA.II of 2oo4 here,

. ‘V:.’thae;a’p_;$ellant submits that the delay is ‘not much’. What matters

isnot the period or the length of delay. But the delay has to be

S satisfactorily explained. In the absence of the satisfactory

explanation, the Court below cannot be held to be fault for

flfilri.

dismissing the application for the condonatlon of deiay. No good

grounds are made out for my interference.

4. I dismiss this revision petition. No orda asbte coetsf

inn