Regular First Appeal dismissed but with liberty granted to plaintiffs to issue notice under Section 80 CPC and reinstate the suit, as dismissal due to procedural defect was curable.
Liberty granted to plaintiffs to issue appropriate notice under Section 80 CPC to reinstate the suit if not considered within time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1207/2012
BETWEEN:
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.K. SHIVARAJ, ADV. FOR SRI V.VISHWANATH)
AND:
2
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION), KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001
… RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, READ WITH O- 41, RULE – 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6791/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV-ADDITIONAL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
3
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 6791/2011. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for declaration and injunction. The Court below has dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 03.04.2012. The plaintiffs are therefore before this Court.
considering the nature of disposal, it would not be necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
4
suit was instituted. The Court below has not adverted into the merits of the contention. However, having noticed that the suit has been instituted by filing a application seeking dispensation of notice under Section 80(2) of Civil Procedure Code had arrived at the conclusion that, there was no great urgency in filing the suit and the plaintiffs should have instituted the suit after issuing notice. It is in that context, the Court below had ultimately dismissed the application as well as the suit.
5
notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code and if their request is not considered by the defendants within the time provided, it would be open for the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit. The dismissal of the instant suit shall not come in the way of the Court below considering the fresh suit that may be filed by the plaintiffs.
of.
Sd/JUDGE
ST*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dismissal of a suit for inadequate notice under Section 80 CPC is a curable defect warranting liberty to reinstate.
Whether grant of liberty to issue appropriate notice should be included in the final order declaring the judgment affirmed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
KUM U. EASHITA (later U. Aditi)
SRI S. UMESHA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
SECRETARY/DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD
A.S. BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
