Karnataka High Court
A.Chandrashekhar Since Dead By His Lrs vs Mamta W/O Subhaschandra on 22 October, 2024
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
RP No. 2572 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 2572 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SUSHEELA BAI W/O LATE A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGE:57 YEARS,
2. RAVINDRA S/O LATE A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
3. KAVITA D/O LATE A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA ALL ARE R/O. SATPATNALLI,
UDAGI TQ. SEDAM, DIST. GULBARGA.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAMTA W/O SUBHASCHANDRA
(D/O LATE A. CHANDRASHEKHAR),
DEAD BY HER LR'S
(a) GNAYANESHWAR S/O SUBHASHCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
RP No. 2572 of 2011
(B) OMKARESHWAR S/O SUBHASHCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
(C) SUBHASHCHANDRA
S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA BASLINGKAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
ALL ARE R/O. KIRANA BAZAR LINE,
SEDAM TOWN, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C))
THIS RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION
BY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 09.03.2010
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.S.A.NO.2678/2007.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCOTYR APPLICAITON, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
This review petition is filed by the legal
representatives of the appellant in RSA No.2678/2007.
2. The above RSA No.2678/2007 was dismissed on
merits by this Court on 09.03.2010.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
3. Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned
counsel for the review petitioners submits that as on the
date when the appeal was disposed of, the appellants had
engaged his services and he had been filed the vakalath
on 24.07.2009. He further submits that though he had
filed the Vakalath, his name was not reflected in the cause
list, therefore he could not appear. However the name of
one Sri B.C.Jaka and Sri B.A.Nanjareddy, learned
Advocates are shown as the counsel representing the
appellants in the cause title of the order dated 09.03.2010
passed in the above RSA No.2678/2007. He submits that
the said counsel Sri B.C.Jaka and Sri B.A.Nanjareddy had
not filed the Vakalath. He further submits that since none
represented the appellants, this Court ought not to have
disposed of the matter on merits without any opportunity
of being heard be given to the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand submits that the order dated 03.07.2009
reflect that one Sri B.C.Jaka had undertaken to file power
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
for appellants along with one Sri S.K.Venkatreddy and
accordingly, this Court had taken note of the same and
proceeded to pass the order.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. Office note dated 18.12.2009 as found in the
order-sheet maintained by this Court in RSA
No.2678/2007 indicate that Sri Sharanabasappa
K.Babshetty, learned Advocate had filed the Vakalath for
the appellants. The records also reveal that the present
counsel Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty had filed
Vakalath on 24.07.2009 instant. However the order-sheet
dated 03.07.2009 reveal that one Sri B.C.Jaka had
undertaken to file power along with one Sri
S.K.Venkatreddy and others for the appellant. But no such
vakalath is forthcoming in the records.
7. Also necessary to note that the vakalath which
is filed by Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, learned
counsel does not have an endorsement of previous counsel
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
for he having given his 'No Objection' in filing the
vakalath.
8. Thus, there appears to be certain anomaly in
appellants being represented before this Court. However,
the cause title of the order dated 09.03.2010 reveal that
the appellants were represented by Sri B.C.Jaka and
Sri B.A.Nanjareddy, learned Advocates who have not filed
the vakalath as already noted above.
9. Be that as it is, in terms of sub-rule (1) of
Rule 17 of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure if the
appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for
hearing, the court is required to make an order dismissing
the appeal and it does not contemplate passing of an order
on merits. In the instant case, this Court by order dated
09.03.2010 has dismissed the appeal on merits.
10. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts situation
of the matter namely though Sri Sharanabasappa
K.Babshetty had filed the vakalath for the appellants,
name of one Sri B.C.Jaka and Sri B.A.Nanjareddy is shown
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7764
as counsel in the cause title who have neither filed
vakalaths in the matter, nor have represented the
appellants in the matter, this Court is of the view that the
order be recalled and matter be heard.
11. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. The
order dated 09.03.2010 is recalled. The appeal i.e., RSA
No.2678/2007 is restored to its original file.
12. List the RSA No.2678/2007 on 29.10.2024
along with RSA No.7058/2012.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.1
