Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kullayamma vs Smt. Parvathamma on 4 January, 2011
IN THE EWHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED mas THE 41" DAY OF JANUARY, 201111«jf§111»14
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE wtR.JusT:cE H.Bu.L;Aé'PAV1%'1%
F%P.Nok241/2011}-.V '
BETWEEN: 1 1 A
Smt.Ku§layamma,
Wife of Penchatayya,
Residing at No.288,
11"' Main, Naras§pur2«V_Lay0u1,« _ '
Viciyaranyapura, _,
Bangalore--56O_C.97.;?'1'1' .1 ...Petitioner
(By
ANU'
1 . Smt. Pa?v«a1%11an§1rn_e1,' "
W3':'e;~' QT 8ri.P.ul1'a%ah, *
f4Qed_ébQut 55"ye.arSe
, Resi'di'ng1'1at¢_No.288,
' 1 ~13' 'Méi1.r§',~Na--rasipL:ra Layoui,
. -.\g'idAy':'§.fa!jya.t;-zgra,
W Banga§0*r:g+T?' 560 097.
3 Sr: .11r:>11u:«1§ aiahfi
.. V1S0;2'e;fSuraéah,
" _ Aged abaui 60 years,
._ "Residing at £90,288,
11"' Main, Narasipura Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
I-J
Bangalore --- 560 097. ...Respohd__ehts
(By Sri.F'.Mahes%1a,Adv.,torR1 & 2)
iiicirk
This Review Petition filed under Order 47.~l"---'u.rl.:e'..iv --«..
praying for review of the Order dated Qal;'O2;2.0'iQ pas_s'e'd in-C~RP.A
67/2009, on the file of the Horfble High'...Qourt_o.t 't<ar~h:a_tal<a,.
Bangalore.
This HP. coming on for Orde:'«s.V't'e§s days,-.the,CoLirt,V»4d'e'liv'ered
the following:
The petition.erj:has fiigedlthiis p-etitliolln seeking review
of the order; by this Court in
CRF'.No.67f'200.§§"t;".' i
2. \_Thls ' order dated 4.2.2010, has
dismissed the'i'revivsio'ri__petiutiori filed by the petitioner confirming
the' order. passed lav t'l'ie.._T.riai Court in i\Aisc.No.242/2007.
V petitioner has filed special leave petition before
L the 'Hc;:n'b1e.."sritg3£:eme Court in Si.P{Civil)No."l4532/2010. The
--. fifjgj'»ij?io.:t'b§e Sept-eme Court teas dismissed the special leave petition"
v\w<~a.-«-mm
\
4* The tearned counsel for the petitioner contended that
in view of the second proviso to Order EX Rule 13 ot CPO, e--:<--;)arte
decree cannot be set--aside as notice has been served_._'7 tllittitrther
he submitted that having recorded a finding that notide
served allowing application under Orde2j':ll>AA<ll Ftule
be contrary to the statutory provision. V4'vHe'--..also stiblrrtitteo'=,t'it.at'g
when there is Conflict between law-and equityifthhe 'should
prevait. He atso submitte'd.«_ Site?' "has been
dismissed by the l-ton'ble Siipre.rne"_Cour--t3.:vtiite~review petition is
maintainabte. |--te;"t§;h:eretd-re,%Lsflbrnitteidiilthat the order dated
4.2.2010 of his submission, he
placed reliarase idesisions:
(2p.o,8) 2 pa.geAli-26"'
it - e A Alisa 13.81"' so ;:ti=gtg"e"tt'i2s4
page 238t
V___i'AsvlA.1'~~'against this, the teamed Counsel for the
it 3"vi"res'pondeets-- submitted that the scope of teview is very limited and
'g_roi;--nd is made out to review the order dated 4.2.20tO and
t//'
therefore, the review petition is iiabie to be dismissed. He aiso
submitted that the respondents were not served with the notice
and they had no kriowiedge of the proceedings or hearing date and therefore, the second proviso to Order iX Rate 13 not appiicabie, Further he submitted that though th_ieT"Ce.iirt,: _ heid that notice has been served, it has not reco-r"de'd'1:any~tfindintj 'v that the respondents had the knowiedtge ot~t.he"date:'ot'"iteari'rtgi and therefore, the order datedit--.i§!.20't'Gifdoes,'not-.._cai.i3 interference. He aiso strbmitted §tnowiedgi_eV._of vvoendency of the proceedings is diffeirent.trorrsf,'i:n'ovtrtedg.e of date of .--/' hearing oniviiiirecord to show that the respondentshad%the_knowii'edQ'e«re'? date of hearing and therefore, the order sougéht to be recvievtred does not caii for interterence. I-'fv1VF.t'r'r*ihe'rr*~ he5.--."teube}itted«that this Court has confirmed the order gdaesfed .:t,i\,.§.V"iiVriVa.i,jtiottrt considering aii aspects and therefore, it doesnot caiidjter interference. He aiso submitted that the ""ifi."fpe'tit§oVnerhas preferred SLP before the Horfbie Supreme Court the order dated 4.2.2010 and the SLP has been if ':,'_4dierr*-eased and therefore, the review petitioe cannot be '3 5 ,5 entertained. in support of his submission, he placed reiiance on the foiiowing decisions:
1. A29 2000 SC page 1850
2. AIR 2002 SC page 2370
3. 2004 ALL L..J. page 2850.
4. Decision of the Painjab &A:4'He{it'y_e1na CR.NO.4890/2009.
He, therefore, submittediflhet _t'iie_"i5ejyiVew, petitiionimay be dismissed.
6. I have ::a..retuiiyloons,i.deredi'th.ev_stifbn1issions made by the leaF|'ie0i.£3O{JFi00iV:ii1'i"- '0
7. 'i«nVVSUNi!,._P0DD'AR«.& Others vs. UNION BANK OF INDiA reperted fliuii (102,000) page 326, the Hon'bie Supreme I-i,'_:QiosrtVhas ti'eid,'"'i:i3e iegeiiiiioosition under the amended Code is not was actuatly served with the summons in Vi"accordai:iee,__~'with the procedure iaid down and in the manner EHEOFGEF 5 of the Code, but whether (i) he itad notice of 'd_'ete-not hearing of the suit and (ii) whether he had sufficient 5 erpovmf 6 time to appear and answer the ciaim of the ptaintitf. Ohce_..ft_hese two conditions are satisfied, exparte decree cannot be se~rj»Va'si'(ie}'.t"
8. En HAF-'i CHARAN vs. SHIV RAM &ete:tifererreperieFd r in Am 1901 so page 1284, the Hort'bie__ sttprieimuet,cio'urtirtveeei%Lr§ere' when a registered ertvetop is té:YI'd_(f}i'edV" a' tel addressee and the addressee reft_}:ses,--,tthe"ks'r.0t§a.ied§,:re of the contents of the fetter can be"irrr"p_utL?:d :9 .vthe.':addressee.
9. in iN0iA reported in AIR 2000 so Court has hetd, the p0wer:V'i0'f"revre?r§{ correction of a méstake and not power of review can be exercised .withirt"th:e riirr:its"'ofV't'he statute deating with the exercise i *r*i%;rtr»%sL35rsi¥i:L KUMAR SABHARWAL vs. GURPREET ' 3iNGHk''8g fithers reported in AIR 2002 SC page 2370, the §Li:('3»Ft;VbVi€é«-..}SLttV'3"FE3i"I3e Cour': has heir: it is the krzcwtedge et the date hearthg arid trot the kttowiedge of the peridency et sttit which is 3 E t yr' retevant for the purpose of the proviso under Order IX Rute.___13 of CPD.
11. In RAM SAGA!'-"t & others vs. o|stFéE:TtJjuoe'E~; csoNoA 8L Others reported in 2004 Allahabad High Court has held otdepr iXV"R_et'e tseteii sjhewef. that a party against whom an exp_a:rte:_deoree"hasfibeen passed shoutd have the knowledge" ofiithideiJ.datje'.:'ii>ged the Court concerned. The inteotiooiii to invoke the provision of Orddefi. jt--s"'the"khowEedge of date of hearing. plaintiff to show that the defendant. vdas'i"Viwettt:ogt>'thie't<..notrdtedge of the date of hearing. The date fixed' "torxheattn*g:':'_"_means the date when the Court . proceeds exparte to deotdée. the suit.
._ei2: ti"$ir'oitV'ar:'_i.view has been taken in AMAR KAUR vs. BADALVSlt§§Gtf{§'.»&V.Others by the Punjab & Heryarta High Court ie t Ne,4eeo,?'2eoe decided on May 24, 2010' it/'
13. Therefore, it is clear from the above decisions that knowledge of the date of hearing is relevant for the purpose of second proviso to Order 9 Fiuie t3 of CPC. if the Court is satisfied that the party had the knowiedge of date of hea::i:ri.g:'_:'a_nd had sufficient time to appear and answer the _ there is some irregularity in service of surnmoris';exp:arte'w»deorete '* V cannot be set--aside. Therefore, what re_ji'evant'*»i.s,'-hihethie-rpthe party had the knowledge of date ot_'h.earin'g'.v. iii'. ease, the respondents have entered the ywitVr1»esst_._box.'and:vdeVpiosed that they had no knowiedge otllthfie..p'rodeedi'riVg:s.:'»éand they were not served withthe"n.oti_oe'.':3:'fV4The"optics"ha'sibeen served by affixing a copy on thevouter doorlotlltheli"i=es'pondents house. The notice is not served direot:y_:on.t.herespondents. it is stated that witnesses Yiwe-re prese~rit. But, except the petitioner and the Court Amin no w':tnes_sVhes'iheerie-.vei*xarnined. The evidence or' the respondents discioise thet~the:yAl'had no knowiedge or the date of hearing. No _...l'.L'i.",i"d'o'LehtTLit .Es..':'heid that there was service of notice but' the é"'respehd'ents have stated that they had no krtevviedge of the ':'pre_ceedings, Unless the Court is satisfied that the respehdents i I had the knowledge of the date of hearing, there is no impediment under second provision to Order 9 Rate 13 of CPD to setfaslde the exparte decree. in the present case, it cannot be _rsai:d.,l_l'the respondents had the knowledge of the date of trorn this, the petitioner has challengad t_tte""'0rr;leVr""dated 04.02.2010 before the l-lon'ble Supreme1'_'Co;urtll'~in"' N0¢14532X201OI< The 3-lon'bEe Stiprelrae Co'urt_ thee' SLP. The Courts have consistent-ly_halti--~..to easure sisbstantial justlce normally. Therefore; ' _En mgr fco§1sIid.e%r'e.d view, in the circumstances of t.he:;case, 4.2.2010 does not call forEnterferzence'_'and_..lt_s'tartd--sVf~.._' _ .
14. Tuha_revvEe'w_ 'rs dtsmissed.
' E __:Sevnd loa'cE<. the. LCR.
Sag;
iffirsa " sstrs 0