Karnataka High Court
Demappa @ Dyamappa S/O Peerappa Lamani, vs Gangadhar S/O Peekappa Lamani @ ... on 2 April, 2019
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
R.F.A.NO.100402/2017(DEC-INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. DEMAPPA @ DYAMANNA S/O PEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SEVANAGAR (KALLEDAVARA TANDA),
TQ.BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SHANKRAPPA S/O DEMAPPA @ DYAMAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SEVANAGAR (KALLEDAVARA TANDA),
TQ.BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
3. PUTTAPPA S/O DEMAPPA @ DYAMAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SEVANAGAR (KALLEDAVARA TANDA),
TQ.BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADV. FOR
SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. GANGADHAR S/O PEEKAPPA LAMANI @ BANAKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND EMPLOYEE,
R/O SHIDENUR, TQ.BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SOMASHEKHAR @ SOMAPPA S/O PEEKAPPA LAMANI @
BANAKAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIDENUR, TQ.BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.90/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, BYADGI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION AND INJUNCTINO
THESE APPEALS COMING ON ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants, who are the defendants in O.S.No.90/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi (for short 'the Trial Court') have filed this first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2017 whereby, the Trial Court has decreed this suit in O.S.No.90/2013 filed by the respondents for declaration and title to the agricultural lands in Sy.No.139/1D measuring 5 acre 16 guntas, Sy.No.145/4A measuring 3 acre 12 guntas and Sy.No.145/4B measuring 3 acre 12 guntas of Sevanagar Village of Byadgi Taluk, Haveri District (for short 'the subject properties') and for permanent injunction.
2. The respondents filed the suit in O.S.No.90/2013 contending inter alia that Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna s/o Ramappa Lamani was the absolute owner of the subject 3 properties. He acquired title to the subject properties in a partition affected with his brothers in the year 1987, and the katha for the subject properties was made in his favour in the year 1988. Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna s/o Ramappa Lamani and his wife had no sons but had three daughters viz., Smt. Dhyamavva, Smt. Hemavva @ Tulachavva and Smt. Hanumavva. Their elder and younger daughters, Smt. Dhyamavva and Smt. Hanumavva, were married but died without children, and their husbands are also no more. The other daughter, Smt. Hemavva @ Tulachavva, died and the respondents are her children. Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna died in the year 1991 and his wife predeceased him in the year 1990. After the demise of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, the respondents continued in possession and enjoyment of the subject properties as the absolute owners having succeeded thereto as his Class-I legal heirs. However, they had not made any application for change of Katha in their name. The appellant No.1 taking undue advantage submitted a Varadi for mutation contending that he was the son of Sri. Ghemappa. The revenue authorities accepted such Varadi and mutated the 4 katha for the subject properties in the name of appellant No.1 without even notice to the respondents. Later, in perpetuation of this untenable conduct, the appellant No.1 entered into a partition with his family members, including his sons viz., the appellant Nos.2 and 3 purporting to partition the subject properties. The appellants submitted a subsequent Varadi for mutation, and the authorities accepted the mutation even as per this Varadi . Therefore, the respondents were constrained to file the present suit in O.S.No.90/2013 for declaration of their title to the subject property as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna and for permanent injunction.
3. The appellants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments. The appellants contended that the appellant No.1 is the son of Sri. Peerappa and Lachamavva, and Sri. Peerappa is Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna's younger brother. Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna because had no son brought up the appellant No.1 as his son. After the demise of Sri. Ghemappa, the appellant No. 1 submitted a Vardi for change of khata of the subject properties in his favour. He 5 submitted all the documents in support of the Vardi for change of katha in his name, and subsequently there is an inter-se partition amongst his family members. The respondents were aware of these circumstances. Therefore, they did not claim any right in the subject properties or file any suit until the present suit.
4. The Trial Court framed following issues:
1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration?
2) Whether defendants No.1 to 3 prove that they are owners of 'A' schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule-A property?
4) Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference from the defendants?
5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
6) Whether defendants prove that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
7) What order or decree?6
The respondents, in aid of their case, filed interim application in I.A.No.4 with the Trial Court for summoning the Varadi and the documents submitted by the appellant No. 1 for the change of the katha. The Trial Court allowed this application in I.A.No.4 summoning the documents from the Tahasildar's office. The Tahasildar's office, in compliance with the summons issued, filed certain documents with the Trial Court on 27.01.2015. The respondents examined respondent No.2 and one Janappa S/o Babappa Lamani as P.Ws.1 and 2, and they marked different documents as Exs.P1 to P68, including the documents filed by the Tahasildar's office viz., Exs.P40 to P68. The appellants did not examine the appellant No.1, but examined appellant No.3 as D.W.1, and one Subbappa s/o Chikkappa Lamani and Bheemappa s/o Bopeppa Lamani as D.Ws.2 and 3. They marked Exs.D1 to D29, which include Genealogical Tree and School Certificates.
5. The Trial Court found Issue Nos.1, 4 and 5 in favour of the respondents. These Issues required the respondents to establish that they were entitled for declaration of title and that they were in peaceful possession of the subject 7 properties. The Trial Court found Issue Nos.2 and 6, which required the appellants to show that they were the owners in possession of the subject properties, in the negative against the appellants.
6. The Trial Court opined that, as the appellants claimed title to the subject properties on the assertion that the appellant No.1 was the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, the appellants had to establish that the appellant No.1 was Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna's son to establish their title to the subject properties. The Trial Court held that the best evidence as regards the relationship between Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna and appellant No.1 could have come from the appellant No.1, but the appellant No.1 had not entered the witness box ostensibly because the appellant No. 1 was aged and was suffering from paralysis. But, one of the witnesses examined by the appellants, viz., D.W.3 stated in his evidence that the appellant No.1 had recovered and was in a position to speak and also give evidence. The appellants did not even make efforts to get a court commissioner appointed for 8 recording the evidence of the appellant No. 1. As such, the best evidence was kept out.
7. Further, the Trial Court concluded that the appellants, despite contending that the appellant No.1 was shown as son of Sri Ghemappa @ Ghemanna in different documents like Voter I.D. and Ration cards, had not placed any documentary evidence to establish the relationship between the appellant No.1 and Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. The appellant No.3, who is examined as D.W.1, had admitted that the appellant No.1 (his father) was the son of Sri. Peerappa. His father and his father's brothers, and other members of the family, had affected a partition in the year 2005, and in such partition, the subject properties were allotted to the appellant No.1. The documents submitted to the revenue authorities for mutation after this partition also established that the appellant No.1 was the son of Sri. Peerappa. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that the appellants had failed in establishing the relationship with the undisputed owner Sri. Ghemappa. The Trial Court also concluded that the evidence of other witnesses was not helpful 9 in establishing the relationship between the appellant No.1 and Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. The Trial Court, for these reasons, and because there was no dispute that Sri. Ghemappa had only three daughters, and two of them died without children and the other daughter was survived by the respondents, concluded that the respondents had established that they were Class-I legal heirs of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. Consequentially, the respondents were able to establish that they were the owners of the subject properties.
8. The appellants have filed two applications in the present appeal. The application in I.A.No.2/2017 is filed under Section 107 read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The other application in I.A.No.3/2017 is filed under Section 107 read with Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for permission to produce original Will dated 14.02.1991 purportedly executed by Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna in favour of the appellants. The affidavit in support of these applications are filed Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna is sworn to by the appellant No.1. 10
9. The appellants now propose to amend their written statement to contend that Ghemappa had fostered appellant No.1 as his own son as he did not have male heirs. His daughters, including the mother of the respondents, being married were residing in their matrimonial homes and as such, Sri. Gemappa had fostered the appellant No.1, who is his younger brother's son. The respondents' mother died in the year 1980 in her matrimonial home. The respondents stayed only there. The other daughters of Sri. Ghemappa also passed away in their matrimonial home, and neither they nor their family members resided with Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna had executed Will dated 14.02.1991 out of his own volition bequeathing the subject properties to the appellant No.1. The appellant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in his own right without any interference. The appellants could not set up this defense based on the Will dated 14.02.1991 because they were not able to lay their hands on the original Will dated 14.02.1991. However, after the impugned judgment by the Trial Court they were able to trace the original Will in some old 11 papers in the house Sri. Pakeerappa. They could not produce the Will dated 14.02.1991 despite due diligence. As such, the Will dated 14.02.1991 is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the case.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal, placing reliance on the proposed amendment and the original Will dated 14.02.1991, contended that the appellants are not introducing any new case or new document in proposing the amendment or seeking permission to produce the original Will dated 14.02.1991 as an additional document. The respondents themselves had summoned from the Tahasildar's office documents filed by the appellant No. 1 in support of the first Vardi in the year 2005. A copy of this Will dated 14.02.1991 was filed by the Tahasildar's office in response to the summons, and a copy of this Will is marked as Ex.P67. The documents produced by the Tahsildar's office pursuant to the summons indicate that the appellants had made a Vardi for change of katha immediately after the demise of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna relying upon the Will dated 14.02.1991. In the Vardi submitted by the appellant No.1 he 12 had described himself as son of Ghemappa and his wife Sitavva as they had brought him up as their own son. The fact that appellant No.1 had submitted Varadi, including copy of the Will dated 14.02.1991 at an undisputed point of time, show that the appellant No. 1 had acted bonafide but could not take any defense in that regard because of illiteracy and for want of custody of the original Will. The Trial Court, though referred to the Will dated 14.02.1991 (Exhibit P 67), had not examined the significance of the same in the light of the dispute between the parties. There would be complete adjudication only if the appellants have an opportunity to substantiate their case on the basis of the Will dated 14.02.1991. The amendments could be allowed even at the appellate stage to facilitate complete adjudication, and even additional evidence is permitted at the appellate stage only for such reason. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter for fresh consideration as provided under Order XLI Rule 23(A) of CPC.
11. The learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand, refutes such submission by the learned counsel for 13 the appellants, but does not dispute that a copy of the Will dated 14.02.1991 is indeed marked as Ex.P67 by the respondents themselves while marking the documents produced by the Tahasildar's office in response to the summons issued by the Trial Court on the application filed by the respondents to produce such documents . The learned counsel for the respondents contends that an amendment at the appellate stage cannot be permitted as a matter of routine. In fact, even during the pendency of the trial the amendment is not allowed after commencement of the trial unless the conditions in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are established. In the present case, the appellants have contested the claim for declaration of title only on the ground that the appellant No.1 was the son of the Ghemappa and he had succeeded to the subject properties in that capacity. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the appellants had not established that the appellant No.1 was the son of the Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, and that the respondents as Class-I legal heirs of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, in view of their undisputed 14 relationship with him, would be entitled for declaration of title. The appellants cannot be permitted to take a completely new stand at the appellate stage.
12. In the light of the rival submission, the questions that arises for consideration are:
"a. Whether the appellants have made out a case for allowing the applications, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2017 filed under Section 107 r/w Order XLI Rule 17 and Section 107 r/w Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC respectively, and b. If these applications are to be allowed, should the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration?
13. The evidence on record establishes that neither the appellants nor the respondents dispute that Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna was the absolute owner of the subject properties and that he and his wife had three daughters. The respondents are the children of their second daughter, Smt. Tulasavva, and their elder and the third daughter died issueless. Therefore, it 15 follows from these facts that if Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna and his wife either died intestate or that they did not have any other child, the respondents would succeed to the subject properties absolutely, and as such, the respondents would be entitled for declaration of title to the subject properties. However, the appellants, more specifically appellant No. 1, has intervened resulting in the present suit. The appellant No. 1 has submitted a Vardi for change of katha for the subject properties after the demise of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. The appellant No. 1 has submitted a Vardi relying upon the Will dated 14.2.19 91 purportedly executed in his favour by Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, and pursuant to such Vardi, the katha for the subject properties is made in the name of the appellant No. 1. The evidence on record is that the respondents initiated revenue proceedings challenging the katha for the land in R S No. 137/2, measuring 7 acres and 36 guntas, of Sevanagar Village in favour of the appellant No. 1 insofar as Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna's name. This revenue proceedings has culminated in a closure by the orders of the competent appellate authority that the katha for the land in 16 R.S. No. 137/2 would be made subject to the decision in the present suit in OS No. 90/2013.
14. The appellants, despite the katha for the subject properties being made in the name of the appellant No. 1 based on the Will dated 14.2.1991, filed written statement contending that the appellant No. 1 is entitled to the subject properties because he is the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna without adverting to the Will dated 14.2.1991. The assertion by the appellants that the appellant No. 1 is the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna being seriously disputed by the respondents, the Trial Court has examined the question of title to the subject properties from the perspective of the appellant No. 1 being the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. The Trial Court has concluded that the appellant's have failed to prove that the appellant No. 1 is the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna because the appellants did not examine the appellant No. 1, who would have been the best witness to speak about the relationship between himself and Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, and also because the appellants did not produce any document to establish that the appellant No. 1 is the son of Sri. 17 Ghemappa @ Ghemanna though they asserted that they had documents to establish the same.
15. Presently, in the appeal two applications have been filed for amendment of the written statement and to produce the original Will dated 14.0.2.1991 as additional evidence. The appellants now propose to substantiate their claim to the title of the subject properties based on the bequeath vide the Will dated 14.02.1991. However, the case now proposed via the amendment is not entirely new, and is still grounded in the undisputed facts that Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna was the original owner of the subject properties, and he did not have a son and therefore the appellant No. 1 was brought up by him as his own son. The appellants now propose to contend that the Will dated 14.02.1991 is executed by Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna in favour of the appellant No. 1 essentially because of the aforesaid reasons. Further, the evidence on record is that the appellant No. 1 submitted Vardhi for change of katha for the subject properties in his favour relying upon the Will dated 14.02.1991 and that the katha was also made in favour of the appellant No. 1 pursuant to such Vardhi. A copy of the 18 Will dated 14.02.1991 and the Vardhi submitted by the appellant No. 1 are marked as Exhibit P 66 and P 67. It is even suggested to DW.1 that his father, the appellant No. 1, had submitted Vardhi for the change of katha for the subject properties based on the Will dated 14.02.1991, and DW 1 has admitted this suggestion. However, insofar as the next suggestion that the katha for the subject properties was made in the name of appellant No. 1 vide MR No. 22 (sic) because of the Will dated 14.02.1991, the DW 1 has responded to this suggestion stating that because he cannot read and write he cannot respond to such suggestion.
16. It is obvious from the aforesaid that despite the material on record, the appellants did not understand the significance, or the import, of such material as regards their claim of absolute ownership to the subject properties. The Trial Court has adverted to the Vardhi and Will dated 14.02.1991 (Exhibit P 66 and P 67) and the evidence of DW 1 as regards these documents, but the Trial Court has examined these material only from the perspective of ascertaining the relationship between the appellant No. 1 and Sri. Ghemappa @ 19 Ghemanna. The appellants applications for amendment of the written statement and production of original document will have to be examined in the light of these material on record, and the law as regards permitting amendment of pleadings and receiving additional documents at the appellant stage.
17. Insofar as the law on permitting amendment of pleadings at the appellant stage, the following three decisions would be of significance.
(i) Pandit Ishwardas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has declared that:
"There is no impediment or bar against an appellate court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the appellate court should observe the well-known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the appellant stage, the reason why it was not sought in the trial court. If the 1 (1974) 4 SCC Page 163 20 necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise.
But, there is no prohibition against an appellate court permitting an amendment at the appellant stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the court."
(ii) Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Law2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the decision in Revajeetu Builders and Developers case, has held that:
"It is true that there was some delay on the part of the appellant in filing the applications but, in our opinion, the appellant had explained the delay. One cannot dispute that in appropriate cases, the parties are permitted to amend the pleadings at any stage not only during the pendency of the trial but also at the first and second stage with the leave of the court provided the amendment proposed is bona fide, relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the lis. Similarly, the law also permits the parties to file additional evidence that any stage of the trial [Order 7 Rule 14(3)] including at the first or/and second appellant stage (Order 2 (2017)5 SCC 212 21 41 Rule 27) with the leave the court provided a case is made out to seek such indulgence. "
18. This Court way back in 1968 in Akkanagamma and others vs. Nageswaraiah and another3: has held that although the appellate court does have the power in appropriate circumstances to permit either of the parties to amend their pleadings, the question whether such an amendment is necessary is also a question which can arise only as a consequence of and therefore subsequent in point of time to an examination of the records of the trial court and the merits of the controversy. It is further held that "It should be remembered that when the first appellant court hears an appeal, there is already been a decision by the trial court, and the examination of the matter by the appellate court is with a view to see whether the trial court's decree suffers from any error calling for correction by the appellant court. If the order of the trial court is not shown to be erroneous in any regard, the appellant court will be wrong in interfering with it. To permit the parties at the appellant stage to amend the pleadings without first convincing the appellant court that there is an error in the 3 AIR 1968 Mysore - 266 22 decree of the trial court would be to relieve them from the consequences of the trial court's order which is binding on them until it is set aside without examining the merits of the case and without coming to a conclusion that the said order suffers from any error. The type of error which may persuade the appellant court to permit the parties to amend the pleadings is an error which is initially that of the parties themselves because having invited the decision of the trial court upon pleadings were originally presented by them, it is not open to them straightaway to tell the appellate court that there may be relieved by an order passed by the trial court in original pleadings and be permitted to invite its decision upon amended pleadings.
Further, this Court has also held that where amendments are of clarificatory nature, the appellate court may frame additional Issues, and if the additional Issues could be answered from the material on record, there would be no ground for making an order of remand.
19. On an analysis of the evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants have failed in seeking adjudication of their claim of title to the subject 23 properties, despite the material being brought on record by the respondents, perhaps inadvertently by the respondents, because they are not educated, and the appellants are bonafide in seeking amendment in this appeal. The Trial Court, which has considered both the Vardhi and the Will dated 14.02.1991, but for the limited purpose of testing whether the appellant No. 1 is the son of Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna, has not considered the underlying, and the real question whether the appellants could succeed in defending their title to the subject properties because of the Will dated 04.02.1991. The dispute has not been completely adjudicated, and therefore, the reason for this Court to intervene and to allow amendment and production of the original of the Will dated 04.02.1991 as additional document. As such, the first question is answered in favour of the appellants.
20. Consequent to the amendment and the production of Will dated 14.02.1991 being allowed, the respondents will have to be permitted to file their rejoinder, and appropriate Issues will have to be framed with opportunity both to the 24 appellants and respondents to lead their evidence in support of their respective cases. Thereafter, the relative merits of the respective cases will have to be examined in the light of the law applicable. In other words, there will have to be an entirely new adjudication on all questions that ensue as a consequence of the appellants being permitted to defend title to the subject properties on the basis of the Will dated 14.02.1991 purportedly executed by Sri. Ghemappa @ Ghemanna. The settled law is that an appellate court could have recourse to either Order XLI Rule 28 and 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure on permitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and wherever justified, the appellate court should have recourse to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 28 and 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to avoid prolonged litigation. But, in the present case, where amendment and production of additional documents are permitted which, in opinion of this Court, necessarily entails an entirely new adjudication as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment must be set- 25 aside, and the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court for adjudication without expressing any opinion on the merits. Therefore, the following order:
a) The appeal is allowed in part, and the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2017 in O.S.No.90/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Byadgi is set-aside.
b) The applications filed by the appellants in this appeal viz., IA No. 2/2017 for amendment of the Written Statement and IA No. 3/2017 for production of the original Will dated 14.02.1991 as additional evidence, are allowed.
c) The suit in OS No. 90/2013 is restored to the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Byadgi for fresh consideration calling upon the Court to permit the appellants to amend the Written Statement and produce the original Will dated 14.02.1991 as additional evidence and decide the suit expeditiously on merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by an observation that could be made this Court in the course of this judgment.26
d) The appellants and the respondents shall appear before Court on 29.5.2019 without further notice of the first hearing on such date.
e) No Costs SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-