Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yashoda Bai vs Chandroji Rao on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.6350/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YASHODA BAI
W/O LATE ASHOK RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O MYSORE ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE.
2. SMT. PARVATHI BAI
W/O LATE NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O GUTAL COLONY,
5TH CROSS, ATAGALLI ROAD,
MANDYA.
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
2(a). SMT. JYOTHI N
W/O ANAND,
D/O SMT. PARVATHI BAI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NEHRU NAGARA,
SADIYA COLONY,
3RD CROSS, T K ROAD,
BHADRAVATHY.
2
2(b). DEEPU N
S/O PARVATHY BAI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O HOSASIDDAPURA,
MAIN ROAD,
BHADRAVATHY.
2(c). SMT. USHA N
W/O RAVI,
D/O SMT. PARVATHY BAI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NO.37, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGARA
BANGALORE - 51.
3. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O GOWLIGARA BEEDHI,
OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHY.
4. SMT. MANJULA
W/O SRIDHAR MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHY TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M MANJUNATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. CHANDROJI RAO
S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KANCHIBAGILU, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHY.
3
2. SMT. MANJULA BAI
W/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
CMC EMPLOYEE,
SANDAL ROAD,
B R PROJECT,
BHADRAVATHY.
3. SHEELA
D/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
SANDAL ROAD,
B R PROJECT,
BHADRAVATHY.
4. SHILPA
D/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED 31 YEARS,
SANDAL ROAD,
B R PROJECT,
BHADRAVATHY.
5. SHWETHA
D/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED 27 YEARS,
SANDAL ROAD,
B R PROJECT,
BHADRAVATHY.
6. DHANUSH
D/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED 29 YEARS,
SANDAL ROAD,
B R PROJECT,
BHADRAVATHY.
7. SUBBA RAO
S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO,
4
AGED 52 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O SIDDARUDA NAGARA
BHADRAVATHY.
8. MEGHOJI RAO
S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO,
AGED 49 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KANCHIBAGILU,
OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHY.
9. THE COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SHIVAMOGGA.
10 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
KSRTC
DAVANAGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-D DATED 13.09.2019 PASSED
ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.5003/2019 BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA AND CALL
FOR RECORDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-D
DATED 13.09.2019 ON I.A.NO.1 IN RA.NO.5003/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5003/2019
along with memorandum of appeal filed an application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court
rejected the said application vide order dated 13.09.2019.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order of rejection
of application for condonation of delay filed this writ petition.
2. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA v/s PANNALAL
JAISWAL AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2005 SC 226
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that dismissal of an
application for condonation of delay and consequential
dismissal of appeal on refusal to condone the delay is
nevertheless a decision in the appeal. The petitioners have
remedy to challenge the impugned order by way of second
appeal. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the
impugned decree passed by the Appellate Court before the
appropriate forum.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mpk/-*
CT:bms
