Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmegowda S/O Late Siddi ... vs Sri Thimmegowda on 9 July, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.9712 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 SRI THIMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE SIDDI BUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
2 SRI K T PRASANNA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT KOPPA VILALGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. ...PETITIONERS
(BY M/S: BOPANNA & GIRI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI THIMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYA
@ NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. ...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-G, THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2012 MADE BY
2
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, ON I.A.NO.1 IN
R.A.NO.85/2007.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal in R.A.No.85/2007. There was a delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. An application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The same was allowed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Questioning the said order, the defendant has filed the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contends that he was not present in the Court. There was a delay of 335 days in filing the appeal and that has not been properly explained.
3
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the impugned order, I do not find any error committed by the Court below that calls for interference. Medical Certificates issued by the concerned Government Hospital have been produced and marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2, stating that the appellant was suffering from viral Hepatitis and posterior hyper tension. Hence, there is a delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. There is no cross- examination by the defendants. On considering the materials produced, the Court below condoned the delay in filing the appeal. I do not find any error committed by the Court below that calls for interference. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned in view of the appellate Court being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown and sufficient material is produced to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is not the case that the 4 appellate Court condoned the delay only on the ipsi-dixi of the defendants. Medical evidence has been considered and only on being satisfied, the impugned order is passed. I do not find any error committed by the Court below that calls for interference.
The petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KM