Disposed

Smt Sunandamma v. Sri Govindappa

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2022RFA/1518/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a regular first appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. After the parties settled out of court and applications were filed to recall the dismissal and abatement, the High Court allowed various incidental applications, recalled the non-prosecution order, restored the appeal, and disposed of the appeal as settled.

What did the court decide?

Incidental applications allowed; order of dismissal for non-prosecution recalled; abatement set aside; appeal restored and finally disposed of as settled with court fee refund.

Smt Sunandamma Vs Sri Govindappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1518/2007

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SUNANDAMMA W/O. LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHIKKABIDARAKALLU VILLAGE NAGASANDRA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 091.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR SRI.RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA

¶14

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S

¶15

MRS. MUNIRAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA

¶16

MR. RAMAIAH C.G., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,

¶17

¶18

MR. LAKSHMANAIAH.C.G @ RAVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE. GOVINDAPPA,

¶19

MR. YOGANANDA.C.G, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE. GOVINDAPPA,

¶20

ALL 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABIDARAKALLU VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV.) (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED.21.04.2022 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED.)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED U/ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.28.2.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.301/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶24

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Rajagopal Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 21.04.2022 seeking for disposal of the appeal as the matter is settled out of the Court.

¶27

¶28

The Court Officer brought to the notice of the Court the dismissal of the appeal in the year 2014 for nonprosecution. When we verified the Court records, it is seen that the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.01.2014 itself.

¶29

The present Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 made in O.S.No.301/2001 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest @1.5% per month from 1.8.1995 till the date of realization.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 21.04.2022 stating that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the appeal be disposed of as the same having been settled. The memo reads as under:-

¶31

“MEMO

¶32

The undersigned herewith submits that LR’s of the respondent in Execution petition No.54/2018, have

¶33

¶34

received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) through demand draft bearing No.169265, dt:09/03/2022 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Chikkabidarekallu branch towards full and final settlement and the matter was disposed on 19/04/2022. Thus this Hon’ble court be pleased to order for disposal as the appeal has settled and return of court fee, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

5. It is seen that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶36

by the order dated 18.01.2014 has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Subsequently, I.A.Nos.1/2016 came to be filed praying to condone the delay of 961 days in filing the application to recall the order dated 18.01.2014 and I.A.No.2/2016 praying to recall the order dated 18.01.2014. Both I.A.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016 came to be dismissed on 01.02.2018.

¶37

Further, I.A.Nos.1/2022, 2/2022 and 3/2022

¶38

came to be filed praying to condone the delay of 1310 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record, an application seeking to set-aside the abatement arising on account of death of respondent, and an application praying to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent

¶39

¶40

respectively, which came to be returned with office objections.

¶41

Now, I.A.Nos.4/2022 is filed seeking to recall the order dated 01.02.2018 dismissing I.A.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016. I.A.No.5/2022 is filed seeking to condone the delay in filing the application to recall the order dated 01.02.2018. The same are returned with office objections.

¶42

All these clearly indicates the irresponsibility on

¶43

the part of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶44

Today the learned counsel Shri Prashanth for the

¶45

appellant filed Memo dated 21.4.2022 and suppressed the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution dated 18.1.2014 and dismissal of the applications dated 1.2.2018.

¶46

In the interest of justice to the parties and in view of the fact that the matter is settled out of Court, as submitted by learned counsel Sri. K. V. Narasimhan for the respondent, accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.5/2022 is allowed.

¶47

¶48

Delay in filing the recall application is condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.4/2022 is allowed. Order dated 01.02.2018 is recalled.

¶49

Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the applications, I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed. The delay caused in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record is condoned. The abatement arising on account of death of deceased respondent is set-aside. I.A.No.2/2022 is allowed. I.A.No.3/2022 is allowed. The applicants are permitted to come on record as the legal representatives of deceased respondent.

¶50

Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the applications, I.A.No.1/2016 is allowed. The delay caused in filing the recalling application is condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2016 is allowed. The order dated 18.01.2014 is hereby recalled. The appeal is restored to file.

¶51

¶52

Memo dated 21.04.2022 filed by learned counsel

¶53

for the appellant is taken on record.

¶54

In view of the above, the Regular First Appeal is

¶55

disposed off as settled out of Court. The Appellant is entitled to refund of Court Fee in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

dn/CT-HR

Smt Sunandamma v. Sri Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunandamma v. Sri Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Renukadevi Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri.Malla Veeraiah Vs Sri.Muniswamy

Shreenivas K Devarushi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jitendra Halingali Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dayanand Malage Vs the State of Karnataka