Karnataka High Court
Dr. Rajaratan Basavanneppa Ghanti And ... vs Chandrasekhar Mahadevappa Aramani And ... on 4 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR2123, 2003(4)KARLJ329
Author: B. Padmaraj
Bench: B. Padmaraj
ORDER 39, RULE 3A -- Statutory obligation cast on Court -- Final order to be passed within 30 days -- Where violated, aggrieved party has right to file an appeal -- Appellate Court may suggest suitable action against erring official -- Failure to decide application -- deemed to be final order on expiry of 30 days -- revision held not maintainable. ORDER Padmaraj, J.
1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the case records and also the narration of facts made in the Revision Petition. The grievance of the petitioner in this Revision Petition is that the mandate of Order 39, Rule 3A of CPC has been flouted by the Trial Court.
2. It is needless to point that there is a statutory obligation cast on the Court to pass Final Order on the application with in 30 days in view of the provisions contained in Order 39, Rule 3A of CPC. The Court cannot bypass such rule which mandates the Court to give valid reasons for not complying with the said requirement of law. In case, where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A is violated, the aggrieved party shall file an appeal seeking appropriate relief and if any such appeal is preferred, the Appellate Court shall be obliged to take note of the omission on the part of the subordinate Court to complying with the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC. In suitable cases, the Appellate Authority apart from granting or vacating Order may even suggest suitable action against the erring official. Failure to decide the application shall be deemed to be Final Order on the date of the expiry of 30 days and hence, the appeal lies. Thus, there being an alternative and adequate remedy of appeal provided under the statute, the instant Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. VENKATASUBBAIAH NAIDU V. S. CHELLAPPAN AND ORS., 2000 AIR SCW Page 3307 (c). This being the position of law and there being an alternative remedy of appeal provided under the statute, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. It is however made clear that it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if so advised and that the time taken for pursuing the matter in revision bonafide may constitute ground to condone the delay, if any such appeal is filed. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations.