Ningaiah vs T R Prasad on 13 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ningaiah vs T R Prasad on 13 August, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

 V.  HO} .. _____ .. v

3 =  ﬂ'l'1m1ku:r District - 5?'? 200.

   *r.v.Naga;:-aj

ms THE HIGH mum on KARNATAKA AT ggrzigatgﬁs T  MA  
saws THIS THE ism DAYGF AU<3L1s'E«2 QG3%%   
BEFORE  A A' j' . " k

THE Hormm MR.Jm§*'rz§3E ﬁt. vAmr~;:)A"":, "  S

CIVIL Rsvzsmxs; Pl<3'I'I'I'1£§ §'--I9i{:¢208lt2i)f}8~ 

EETWEEN'; 
S/0. Poojari'h:1ud1:aiah"~; _  -  '
Since   !~!"e5;;s*-- * 

1(a) Nanjaiaaméﬂ"   :
W/.¢.<T,bﬁ?9"N5f*:gaiah"  "
Aged  '

1&3} R§§v;aimaV -- V  _  
S[o.';Lat.c: Niﬁgaign. V 
Axgcd about years  "

 " Sfizag 1.ait:.'N§ngaiah
' V. " -V .43 years

1(6) '*Nagar&i:af'
Sign 'L.afc Ningaiah
Aged about 40 years
 Aligre r/a: Ganganaghatta Village
,, ; aupzozzavinakcxe Hob-Ii, 'I'ip1:ur'I'a1uk

8/ er. Veerabhadrcgewda
since dead by hi: legal heir

 



2(3)

Manjula

W] 0. Late 'i',V.Nagaraj

Aged about 35 years

P2] ax K.ThimmaIapm"a
Dantiiganahalii Hobli, V
Ciaannaxayapatna Taluk' 
Ha$$a:r.s. District-E'>?3 116.  "

V.  . V 

(By Sri T.Pra.kash, Advoﬁafe}

ANS:
1..

T.R.Prasad V A
Shxﬁmwﬁmmf ;
Aged abofiit 33- _igo=-,ai*$ % V'

T.R.H.é;tish"_. % _ %
S/Vow..Rai:gést:';E§1;1}"«.. "  ' A'

Aged abmzit, 35'y€«3I*S*  

 am. V1773: Village
Bagur «Homi, Clﬁzannamyapama Taluk
Hassaz: iDistrictl5'i+3 1.16.

V é {Kii;*%hnegdw<;V1;éV'
, _  Late: Nanjegowda
« , 3  ahegt 40 years

   @ Jayamma

. "W/0. 'Fianigaswamy {{1} Rangegoewda
"~«.,.Ag¢:x1'a13é)ut 45 years

Respondents 3 6:, 4 are 1*] a:

Villaga n 'T jﬁodihalli Dakle 8:. Post, Bagur Hobli V " ~. ﬁlhgannaxayapatna Taluk Hassa11.District--573 116. Respondents Lax Nexus, Advocates for R1; R2 as R4 are Served; .. ' Sriyuths V.Rama3h Babu Ga H.N.Sunil Kumar:

M/s.cha1apati1y 85 Sxiaivasa, Advocates for R3) This reviaion petition is fiied under sectiém' E15 against the order dated 16.02.2008, passed _in'~vMie-ceilaneous No.1/2905, an the 1126 of the .'3ivi}---.&Ju~§ige. (S:i.Dn;}f2at= Channarayapatna, allowing tha petiticn fiied under' Orderr. R'u_1r: .' 1'7 Z'/W section 15: CFC, for setting aside the '<ji:*de:<of' dismiséal. (if. O.S.No.3?'/I993 dated 27.09.1999 on the file of :1'::--%;~,.(3ivi} .Ii;d"ge (Sr.Dn.} at Holenaraaipnzra 83 etc _ This reviszion petitien ooming c)n' fo1jadniissaéfjizﬂ thiéi day, the Court made the foliawingr . .

Ct EA :1 .% ' Though th¢:"z1;_attcr"ié;' it is takma up for ﬁnai diggoétﬁgl bf Counsel for 'I'ii1g::j3§iLf£7tiV:3»11_:é1<s9,_ Wﬁgre. _ds:.3f£:nda11ts in 0.S.No.3'?/ 1993, on the at Holellarasiptna. The suit was flgifzti 1"£és§IQi1d'§:nt.$ h;arei11. On completion of pleadings, iéﬁiucs and evidence of plaintiffs was an applicatiozl under Order XVIII Rule 1'? was made by piajntiffs for permission to evidence. The said appﬁwﬁon was ailowed. plaintiffs did Hat it-/ad fuxthcr evidence. The lcamm Judge clismissad the suit for nompmsecution. Aﬁcr a ' period of ﬁve years and four manths, plaintiffs ﬁled a petition '[\7 .

umzier Cinder IX Rule 17 r/w 151 cm in N The learned Judge aceeptecl the petition and asﬁie _ order of dismissal for nonj=pibee<2uf:.§Qn_:. [n1'ad§:'--f} 0.3. No.3'?/ 1993. Thelefoie, defe1i(ia1i §$A' : '._Ai'3efo;€\§ ~ ., Court.

3. The leamed we-mid submit application for aside' ef for non.

prosecution four months from the miserably failed to estabﬁ.-Si} ﬁling the application.

4. ;§'i3.e 1eaz§:1ecVl 1231' plaintiffs would justify the i1npug,ne:iA.o1t3eI=;» AA V' V' . _ V" ie 'seen the impugned order, the suit was '*fefVV:tj()i$~p1'0s9ecuﬁon for the ﬁiilmt of plaililiifs to adduee evidence.

Theieaiiied Judge instead of dismissing the suit for V'1{i§>:1g_1;;:ﬂ;34)secuiio:1, should have pasted the ease for evidence of

--.."V "deﬁ~:ndants. It is not a ease where piainﬁﬁs have mt ., jadduced any evidence at all The learned Judge -in is/£isc.No.1/2005, noticing this inﬁrmity, eondongd 3:5 and restored the suit

6. Considering thﬁ facts and of , and also having regard to ci§smj7é§salVV':é§fV for 'V V nonj-pmsecuﬁon is withgut I ai1ici7,,th:;::§ opinion the Court below has irlegtﬂazity in setﬁng aside: that prtlcrbi'

7. wouki submit plaintiffs 1--;a€v:~; the pmccedrings to ha1a:$s - s_'1:i.t_'is pending since 1993 and requires 53--. 1:1 t1;é the folknviugh ORBER 2 petition is dismiszsm-ti. However, the trial Cduxfgis tn decide the suit within a period of six ' months' the date of receipt of copy of this order. v SN}:

Sd/-

Iudgé

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court