The Writ Petition challenged the order dismissing applications for condonation of delay and restoration of a default-dismissed appeal. The High Court noted a lack of petitioner diligence and rejected the plea to allow condonation. The dispute was dismissed.
The Writ Petitions are dismissed; the impugned orders are upheld.
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 05th DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.23878 OF 2012 AND 4032 OF 2013
(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri. P.S.Revanna, Son of Sannamarappa, Aged about 75 years, Residing at K.K.Palya, Muthkur Post, Gudibande Mandal, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapura District – 683108. (By Shri. Harish H.V., Advocate)
…PETITIONER
AND:
Sri. V.R. Narasimharaju, Son of Revanna Odeya, Aged about 43 years, Residing at Krishna Layout, Pavagada Town, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur Ditrict – 572 101.
…RESPONDENT (By Shri. M.V. Chandrashekara Reddy, Advocate)
2
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records and set aside the dated 9.3.2012 passed in Mis 19/2010 on the file of Itinerary court/Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri (sitting at Pavagada) vide Annexure-A and consequently the order dated 22.8.2009 in Mis.No.1/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, vide Annexure-B and consequently restore R.A.87/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Madhugiri.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner is said to be the plaintiff before the trial
court seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The suit having
been dismissed on merits, a Regular Appeal was filed and during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Application No.1/2009 seeking restoration of the appeal and the said application also having been dismissed for default, the second Miscellaneous Application having been filed, after delay, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and
3
consequently, the second Miscellaneous Application was also dismissed. It is against this, the present writ petition is filed.
court on eight occasions with little progress. It is now heard at length. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is want of diligence on the part of the petitioner, as has been noticed by the appellate court and there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in the very affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay and the court has also taken exception to the patently erroneous and false claims made and has proceeded to reject the applications. It is not one miscellaneous application, but two miscellaneous applications that were sought to be filed.
learned Counsel for the petitioner would plead that the appeal having been dismissed for default, it could at least be considered on merits and disposed of on terms and hence, the petition be allowed and the impugned order of dismissal be set
4
aside and the appeal be restored to file and be heard on merits, on such terms that this court may impose, the same does not merit consideration. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the dismissal of restoration applications for default caused by condonation of delay, given the petitioner's lack of diligence, should be allowed.
Whether the order dismissing the second miscellaneous application for default and rejection of condonation of delay should be quashed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. P.S. Revanna
Sri. V.R. Narasimharaju
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
