Karnataka High Court
Sri. T R Prasad vs Sri C B Madappa on 21 October, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
E IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 219*" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 PRESENT Q E THE HOl\£'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJ1uNAj=:HVV ' % THE HON'BLE MR. iLisfz1cE"s,..E~?T--A.NOHAR. " it REGULAR FIRST ARREA'L...f§c..134;4/201:6 1' BETWEEN: _ it it V' T.R.Prasad s/o T.N.Rangaswarr1y,i." i' V 40 years, No.1260, Magadi ROad,. _ if Housing Board Colony, Bangalore-79. APPELLANT (By Advocatgjjsri.E§;s=sala'Rri5:hna s'hasta?y) AND: . _ _ . C.B.Mada ppa 'O, B'0':f_>aAi'a,l1s,' A 74 years,' i\lo.629, 637, Main, ' -12*" Cross, MICQ LayOut~EI..Stage, 2_ BTM i__ayout, ,'Bangalore~76. .. RESPON DENT TlT_is Regulari First Appeal is filed under Sec.96 of CPC against the 'judgment anciclecree dated 19.2.2010 passed in O.S.No.8279/2005 on the A':'ile'"of the XEI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the _suit~fOr' specific performance. Appeal is coming On for Orders this day, MANJUNATH J. ':de¥.i.vered the following: 2 JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. ADpe"v3V'l1_¢\'l{'aS the plaintiff before the court below. He filed a suit to enforce"'the.'_*agreement said to have been executed by the respondent Respondent owner of the property also filed a for"-. A ejectment and for arrears of rent andffor futulrelmesne Reisporldeizt denied the execution of the agreement:._V'psaid ton executed in favour of the appellant-plaintziififgi~ ..suilts«.vvere together, common evidence wasrecordeflci. has been delivered thereby decreeing file:i:lb\;{_ the O.S.l\Io.S91/2005 and dismissing thei"s'uit..:f"ilied the'ap'pellah_t'h'erein. Against the judgment and decree passed' appellant filed an appeal in RFA 596/2010 _which"-«adppealtseen dismissed on merits confirming the decreeaof' «trial court. After the dismissal of the appeal, 'present'apma_l'is'flled- with an application to condone the delay of 75 days. We haveseen theaffidavit filed in support of the application and we have Vt=.._»_4a'lso heard..ll§r.:_Balal<rishna Shastry, counsel for the appellant. Considering shown by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not trade out a ground to condone the delay and the appeal has to be 'dismissed on the ground of delay only. At this juncture appellant filed a (3)/.
3 memo stating that the appeal may be dismissed as barred by time and the court may order to refund court fee paid on the appeal menfieto the appellant in view of the dismissal of the appeai as barred by'*time;_'__i' "
2. In the circumstances, appeal is dismissed as barredflbylii.l;jf1itaAtia;fi'; _1;1"*.,__A view of the dismissal of the appeai and inl__view.pf the ':inemp'li;y':'the"--. appellant and his counsel, appelianta'is__entitiedfor repfdnci half tor the court fee in accordance with law.
Ewe
pwpiipgttlpnm Ffiggé
""" it
ii'*1,_"xy:sio1o