The State Of Karnataka By Its vs Sri Manjappa S/O Obayya on 16 December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGAL{>uf?eE
Dated the 16"" day of December 2008     
:BEFORE: _7 A,
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE : v.JAGA1s::mj*:5;,Ar*;::: ._

REGULAR SECOND APPEAIv.'{VNo'.'"1.'SO6 /-:20:Q6_  F.

BETWEEN :

1. The State of Kaxnataka,
by its Chief Secretaxy,
Vidhana Soudha,  
Bangalore -- 560 001; _ 7

2. The Range Forest Qfieer, V * . 
Forest D1i';(se_,"_Jagzé.:Iu1j, _V   f
3. The Dis11*iet1'§',e11:;erv9it:)r of Fofiests,
Diétfie-t  {)f€ice,"- H " '  '
Chitxadzu-ge..:  -- '
 ' '    " ...ApPe11ams

  (-B3}? szi'55'.;a..."~eewdar, H.C..G.P. )

 *'3ii'3*4an§.aPPa:{" .
' L-S/o_e.Oir::1§?3z;;'1,"  about 52 years,

--V ChitradU11'ga'Dist1'i<:t.

R} Q '§{e1agote..V{t1lage,
Jagajur  4 5?'? 528,

.. . Respondent

M  ~'Regu1ar Seccmd Appeal filed under Section 100 of the

  against the judgxznent and decree dated 12.4.2005

V passed in R.A.No. 26912004 (URA 9/ 2000) on the fiie of the

Pr}. Civil Judge {Sr.[}11.), I)avat1agere, dismissing the appeal

and confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1999



2

passed in O.S.No. 41/199?' 011 the file of the Civil Judge

(Jr.D11.), Jagalur.

This appeal coming on for hearing this 

delivexed the following :
 »

Heard the learned Gove1*rl_vmer1fA.   

appellants and the respondent, llthotlgh 1   ,

remained unrepresented.

*2.  lapprellants-State is that the
lower   the appeal filed by it

questier1§1lg»tl3e  of the trial court and in doing

 '~   S€}, ilewer af)fpe11.ate court only considered the delay

  by the appellants and on that score

aloxjlel  filed for condonation of delay was

 l'V.,dismis$ed and consequently, the appeal was also

   In other words, the lower appellate court

.   dial not go into the merits of the ease at all and, as such,

 the submission made by the learned Government

Pleader is that the suit of the plaintifi being one for

permanent; i11j:mction and as the suit property belongs

Jr»

-6-'



3

to the Government in the sense it is forest area, 

court could not have decreed the suit of  H

without the revenue authorities being me:}.e'pa1'%:ies as"  

the piaintifi has based his claim on a  7

to have been issued in his«.___favoi5_1* V' by  .1feve_nue  v

authorities. Therefore,    the
judgment of the ma}  he that of the lower
appellate  the matter
needs to      Yet another
submission'"::osLei§:::_is  was issued to the
Government  Section 80 of the C.P.C.

and this  Venotherrfactor which ought to have ied

 V.  to  "either suit by the trial court.

   of the above submissions made and

  the materiat on record and the

creasonsti gassigied by the lower appellate court, the

A '*?f"sii':osta1"itia1 questions of law which have been raised for

  consideration needs to be answered and the said

 questions are as under:

i) Whether the suit of the plaintifi' could not have
been held to be maintainable in the absence of

3*

...I



4

notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. being iseued
to the appellants? V 

ii) Whether the lower appellate court vgas  

dismissing the appeal on the   
without considering the Ifeesons    

appellants for the delay?

4. A perusal of the judgments of  " L'

dog not indicate as tn 80vv.no1loe was
issued by the plaiI1tifl"ktoé""and, therefore,
Without there   as to the
   of a notice
under  trial court could not
have   the plaintiff and the lower

appellate  alfso  the very same error in

 V' "'not"':teilciIi=g into  the Ieqtlirement of Section 80 of

   "   the first question of law is

.    the View taken by the courts below.

 "5,   as the dismissal of the appeal is concerned,

A   of the judgment of the lower appellate court

%    that the application filed by the State to condone

A V  the delay was rejected as the delay was held to be not

satisfactorily explained and consequent to the dismissal

fir

..

responsibility and decisions are leisurely ta.ke_11__ at

various levels and, therefore, it is not uneommoit

delay would be deliberately caused in

revision by the Government.

7. In the light of the arox§esa1di«1axarl_ia3dids§wn hm I4

Apex Court, the lower appellsttf’-couit’sz(ssV ‘V

in refusing to condone””tlie ;x:Vii*s:fet11’nl’g””‘tlie appeal
and more so in a ‘V of where the

appellants have'{qj1est;ione:i’l of

the suit itse1f._l-44″ taken by the lower

appellate in law is the answer

to the second qtiesltio1i’of’lV;:a\a*, for consideration.

‘*-hi “i:*;liei.~.”tres1;lt, “tliie””eppeal is allowed and the

judfiinentsl ‘ below are set aside and the

l to the trial court for fresh

e eaispasal in eeoordanee with law.

Sol ~51
Judge