Sri B N Lakshmi Narasimhaiah vs Trichur Kuri Syndicate Ltd on 16 December, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B N Lakshmi Narasimhaiah vs Trichur Kuri Syndicate Ltd on 16 December, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

E .

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THES THE 15" DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
BEFORE V 0

THE HONBLE MR..JusTtcE SUBHASH%e10a}igr:§'tEv'.'e'%eEi:  _

MFA.No.1 3923i2007...(CF-'C)_-' " "  [IQ  "

BETWEEN:

8ri.B.N.Lakshmi Narasim :.~'{ar«a.;§z.
8/0.Late B.8.Narasappa.  "
Aged about 80 years,

Sri.B.N.LaE<shmi Naray;ana,E%   1'
S/o.Late B.S.Narasappa';   '
Aged about  y__ears.""  -- . 

Sri . N'a'ra--s}. ha   0
S/c},VLa{_e..B.'S';:\Ia_r'asappa,__ -- '
Age'd_ab.o:_n 5:2'y'e.ar"s,_ '--.,_ 

Ati are 'F%'.r'o.SoVmes0war'a~~Village:

"C;iudibanda"T.a'|'zJk, Ko£ar Districz. ...Appei£a:'2ts

V:0(ByRSriilkﬁ/..VNarvasimhan! Advoeaie)

:. mr1L;; mi Syndicaie Ltd.

(F-"orVm'ez Bharatha eaion Bank Ltd.)

 *0 .'TFiC?V'¥UF by its Manager.
.__K"eraIa~ 680001.

Smt.Vasavamba.
W0:-'o.Satyanaraya:'za Setty.



Age about 77 years.

3. Sr§.S.S.Narasimbamurtby,
Szosatbyanarayana Settyt
Age about 60 years.

4. Sri.S.S.E-tarirtatém   
S,r'o.Satyanarayana Setty, 
Aged about 60 years.

5. Sr%.S.S.Art§anaya.
S:'o.Satyanarayana Setty.
Aged about 58 years: 

6. Sri.S.S.Radhakrishana,  A .
S/o. Satyanarayarta S_.att.y_,'- '
Aged about.,5i3ggye.arsi; 

Respo ad-'ents'---N"o".2l..__ 5 'arm  are   '

Res%dentsV..ottr-N:;_'97, (O|d"?\io._6"1) 

Ebraetrrt -Sahib St;t'eet','.E3'angaIo'reL

Resriondertts.  artddz:
Rfat Sri:..Rama';JeWe'liery--Mart,
NO712, JeweI'|e.rs}Street;"Bangalore.

 -  fr.  arxt'..vt;ay::'tat<ssramtE

g '.rDfo.L'a.te .B';S__Narasappa,
 Age 58 5réars,"r.

 _ "R,j':E1t.v§'\§C5'L_4.8i='?..;VAm A" cross,

t\(ijayan.aga_rr;"2"" Stage:
Barzgaglore" --- 40. ..,Respondents

,(By:Sri.Gﬁ§Ver2katesb, Adv. for R6 at 5; Sri.Prasartna.V,R., 'aAa~.g, for Rrr; and R1, R2. R3 and R4 Served) This M.F.A. is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (C) of CPC "against the Judgement dated 53.10.2007 gassed in circumstances, there is a delay of 45 days in filing the miscellaneous application. In support of the same. a"n'ie'dgic.al certificate of the Dr.Parthasarathi was also "

sf} However, the learned trial Judge*'»--togund,V no explanation for the period from during that period, admittedilyujithe plaintifie.E?t\il_\/iuiwasij not' _t.t..; "

suffering from any illness. Olft"tItrS:"{\]l'VVO".J_l'ld, th'e=le»arned trial Judge dismissed the misceil_aneous::ap_picica.t.iort.

3. The for'.th'e"appeilants submits that item theeate te'eueuelteert'irtieel; eepy. the limitation is 30 days iniiiiingthe:rniscelianeous application. However, during this period..,,_ 4F'.iWti-.fe"il'ill,.andas such the miscellaneous was not filed in tirrie; _ delay. though explained. has not been Court below.

.«."V'C';r_n.r:;the other hand, the learned counsel for the it._contesi~ingt.respondents submits that there is no explanation as "ei'aryas"'A_delay between t5-5-1999 to telmgee and during the said period, the appellant No.1 (P.Wt1') had no difficulty in eélrlil firing the miscellaneous application. hence there is no reason for condoning the delay.

5. Considering the explanation and the circumstances? 1 find that the appealcotil.dCzbe'~at"lowedandthe.' order on miscellaneous applicat-ion co'u.lV_d"be set'-'5a;:.it:fe wiithvia direction to the miscellaneous Coiurt:toucons'id.er:theﬂvmatter on merits and in case the fiodsﬂithiat there is justification to recail the it can do so.

However, this F3tsc2,000/~ to the contesting_V[ liiccordingly. the matter is remanded _to Vptt-te~~.__m~isc'e.l_l'arieou's Court i.e., Court of XIV Additional Ciwiil"Judtje.t,m'éangalore. The miscellaneous Court; is d.irecteo'-- dispose of? the matter within three months receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/~ FUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court