Karnataka High Court
Vijayendrachari Since Deceased By Lrs vs The State Of Karnataka Ors on 6 August, 2014
Bench: N.Ananda, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT APPEAL No.10289/2011 (KLRA)
BETWEEN:
Vijayendrachari
Since deceased by Lrs
1. Seetabai W/o Raghunathchari
Aged about 72 years
R/o Rampur
Tq. and Dist. Raichur
2. Balaji S/o Raghunathchari
Aged about 55 years
R/o Rampur
Tq. and Dist. Raichur
3. M.L.N. Murthy
Since deceased the other petitioner
are the Lrs
4. Mr. Sathyavathi W/o B.N.Anand
Aged about 54 years
R/o H.No.905/4, 4th Main,
1st Floor, 1st Cross,
Vidyaranypura
Mysore.
5. M.R. Gururaj S/o Late Raghunathchar
Aged about 53 years
2
R/o Rampur
Tq. and Dist. Raichur.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Sanjeev Kumar C Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Revenue Department
M.S. Building
Bangalore.
2. The Land Tribunal, Raichur
Represented by its Secretary
Tahsildar, Raichur.
3. K. Badeppa S/o Kommal Hanumayya
Age: Major, Occ: Coolie
R/p Askihal
Tq. and Dist. Raichur.
4. Raghunathchari since deceased by LRs
a) Seetabai W/o Raghunathchari
Aged about 72 years,
R/o Rampur
Tq. and Dist. Raichur.
b) Balaji S/o Raghunathchari
Aged about 55 years
R/ o Rampur
Tq. and Dist. Raichur.
c) M.L.N. Murthy,
Since deceased the
Respondent No.4(a) & (b) to be treated as LRs
... RESPONDENTS
3
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA for R1 and R2;
Sri R.B. Anneppanavar, Adv., for R6 to R16;
R4(a) & (b) are LRS of deceased of R4(c) are served;
Notice to R5 is held sufficient vide order dated
4.6.2014)
This Writ Appeal is filed Under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
passed by the Learned Single Judge of TIS Hon'ble Court in
Writ Petition No.15781/1991 dated 9.8.2011 on the file of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bangalore, by allowing the
writ appeal and etc.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day,
N. Ananda J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
There was an inordinate delay of 11 years in filing the application to recall the order dated 11.02.2000 made in W.P.No.15781/1991. The order, which resulted in dismissal of W.P.No.15781/1991, reads thus:
"Counsel for the petitioner are absent. Though I.As. I and II are allowed on 01.02.2000, counsel has not amended the cause title. I.A.II is to implead the L.Rs., of the deceased petitioner on record. Since the cause title is not amended, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed."4
2. This Court had accepted the applications to implead the legal representatives of deceased petitioner in terms of order passed on I.A.No.II. If the learned counsel for petitioner had not amended the cause title in terms of the order passed on I.A.No.II, this Court could have directed the Court Officer to amend the cause title. The petition should not have been dismissed on that ground.
The order extracted above indicates that the writ petition was dismissed though the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. The law is fairly well settled that the parties should not suffer for the mistake committed by the Court. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has not noticed the stage at which the proceedings had gone wrong. In the circumstances, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to dismiss the application to recall the order dated 11.02.2000. Therefore, we accept the appeal, set aside the order dated 09.08.2011 and restore W.P.No.15781/1991 by recalling the order dated 11.02.2000.
5
The Office is directed to post the matter before the roaster bench.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk