H S Umesh Kumar vs The Tahsildar
2023 Latest Caselaw 170 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.190 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.      H.S.UMESH KUMAR
        S/O SIRRAMAIAH,
        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

2.      SRIRAMAIAH,
        S/O LATE PILLAPPA
        MAJOR,
        BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
        D.HOSUR VILLAGE,
        DODDMARAHALLI POST,
        NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
        AND DISTRICT - 56 21010
                                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. R.SHAMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE TAHSILDAR
        DEVANAHALLI TALUK
        DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

2.      SMT. BYRAMMA @MYNIAKKYAMMA
        W/O LATE KULLAPPA
        MAJOR,
        R/AT VODDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
        NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
                          2


     HOSKOTE TALUK,
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

3.   SEETHAMMA
     S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

4.   RAVI
     S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
     R/AT BIDALURU VILLAGE AND POST
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

5.   MUNIBACHAPPA
     S/O LATE KULLAPPA
     MAJOR

6.   SHIVANNA
     S/O LATE KULLAPPA
     MAJOR,
     BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6
     ARE RESIDING AT
     VODDARAHALLI VILLAGE
     NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
     HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114.
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

7.   H.T.NARAYANAPPA
     S/O THAMMANNA,
     MAJOR,
     R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1;
                             3


    SRI.M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV FOR R3 TO R6;
     V/O DTD 16.09.2021 NOTICE TO R-7 H/S;
     V/O DTD 08.07.2022 R3 TO R6 ARE LRS OF DECD R2)

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS
ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.03.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN MIS.PETITION
NO.15025/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT   AND   SESSIONS    JUDGE,   DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE IA NO.2
FILED UNDER SEC.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, TO
CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PETITION AND
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O 41 RULE 19 OF CPC
TO RESTORE THE APPEAL.


     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The petitioners have filed appeal under Section 3(2)

of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961

challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 restoring

the subject land in favour of the private respondents. The

said appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Against which petition under Section 41 Rule 19 read with

Section 151 of CPC and also an application in I.A.2 under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning 279 days of

delay in filing the application for restoration was filed.

2. Learned District Judge dismissed the

application in I.A.2 filed for condonation of delay on the

ground that the petitioners have not shown sufficient

cause for condoning delay in filing application for

restoration, against which the present petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. On perusal of the impugned order and also the

proceedings of the learned District Judge indicates that the

petitioners remained absent without showing any sufficient

cause in prosecuting the appeal and the learned District

Judge left with no option has rightly dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioners for want of prosecution.

5. The petitioners have also not shown sufficient

cause for the delay in preferring the petition for restoration

of the appeal and the learned District Judge has dismissed

the application for condonation of delay and consequently

the petition for restoration of the appeal.

6. Though the petitioners have not shown

sufficient cause to condone delay, however, to secure the

ends of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioners

are granted an opportunity to prosecute the appeal, since

no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the

appeal is restored to its original file and on the contrary

the petitioners' alleged rights over the immovable property

will be adversely affected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

1. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

2. The impugned order dated 02.03.2017 passed

by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Devanahalli in Misc. Petition No.15025/2015 is hereby

setaside and consequently, the petition in Misc. Petition

No.15025/2015 is hereby allowed and the appeal in M.A.

No.45/2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge,

Bangalore Rural District is hereby restored to its original

file.

3. It is made clear that, if the petitioners do not

prosecute the appeal on the next date of hearing without

any sufficient cause, the learned District Judge is at liberty

to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

This order is subject to payment of cost of

Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the private respondents

on the next date of hearing before the learned District

Judge.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RKA