Muneer Ahmed vs Shaik Abdul Aziz on 10 January, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Muneer Ahmed vs Shaik Abdul Aziz on 10 January, 2017

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.223 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

MUNEER AHMED
S/O ABDUL SATTAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
ERAMMA LAYOUT
NO.29, 2ND CROSS
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR MICO
ADOGODI POST, BANGALORE 560030            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.H T NARAYAN, ADV.)

AND:

1.   SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ
     S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR
     MAJOR, R/O NO.20 (OLD NO.12)
     4TH CROSS STREET, SULTANJI GUNTA
     STREET, CIVIL STATION
     BANGALORE 560001

SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

1(A) BASHAJAN
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

1(B) ISHAQ
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                             2


1(C) BABU
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

     1(A) TO 1 (C) ARE SONS OF LATE
     SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ
     ALL ARE R/O NO.20, COLAS ROAD,
     THIMMAIAH ROAD,
     ARUNACHALAM, MUDALIAR STREET
     SHIVAJINAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560001

2.   SMT MEHRUNNISA
     W/O LATE ABDUL KHADER
     @ PYARAJAN, MAJOR
     R/O NO.2, HUSSAINSAB LANE
     DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 4

     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

2(A) IQBOL AHAMED, AGED 29 YEARS

2(B) MUSTAQ AHMED, AGED 28 YEARS

2(C) MUNAVAR PASHA, AGED 32 YEARS

2(D) RAFEEQUE AHMED, AGED 33 YEARS

2(E) FIROZ PASHA, AGED 26 YEARS

(A TO E) ARE SONS OF SMT.MEHRUNNISA

     ALL ARE R/A NO.2, HUSSAINSAB LANE
     DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 4

3.   AHMED JAN
     S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFORSAHIB
     MAJOR, NO.5, (OLD NO.38)
     IST 'A' MAIN ROAD
     BANNERGHATTA ROAD
                                3


    BANGALORE
    SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

3 (A) KAMARUNNISA
      W/O AHMED JAN

3 (B) ALLABAKSHI
      MAJOR

3(C) ALTAF AHMED
    MAJOR

RESPONDENTS 3 (B) & (C) ARE
SONS OF AHMED JAN
R/O NO.1, HUSSAIN SAHEB LANE
LALBAGH FORT ROAD
11TH CROSS, DODDAMAVALLI
BANGALORE - 4                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T V TAJPEER, ADV. FOR R-2(B) & (C)
   AND R3 (A TO C))

    THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.2.2006 PASSED IN MISC.
PETITION NO.1051/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 13), DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 4 CPC AND ETC.,.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 17.2.2006 passed in Misc. Petition No.1051/1995 in O S No. 721/1989 on the file of 4 court of V Additional City Civil Judge, CCHNo.13), Bangalore City, dismissing the Misc. Petition.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit O S No.7821/1989 for the relief of specific performance and consequential injunction. The suit was dismissed for default on 17.9.1993 on the petitioner failing to take steps to bring the legal representatives of respondents No.2 & 3. Seeking restoration of the said suit, the said Misc. Petition was filed with a delay of 3 years and 3 months. The court below dismissed the Misc. Petition and hence the petitioner filed initially the Misc. First Appeal and later got it converted into civil revision petition. Hence this civil revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

4. It is seen from the impugned order that several adjournments were made in the suit to take steps in respect of defendants 2 & 3 to bring their legal representatives on record. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not well and thereby 5 he could not contact his counsel for taking steps. No doubt he has produced Ex.P1 the medical certificate. The said medical certificate related to his taking treatment on 3.5.1992 whereas the suit came to be dismissed much later on 17.9.1993. The certificate also did not indicate as to how many days he needed rest. There was an exorbitant delay of 3 years and three months in filing the Misc. Petition. The said delay was not properly explained by the petitioner. The petitioner has also failed to take proper steps to bring the legal representatives of defendants No.2 & 3, for which reason the suit came to be dismissed for default. The court below has properly appreciated the case and was justified in dismissing the Misc. Petition. There are no good grounds to allow the present civil revision petition.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE akd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court