Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma W/O Late Rajugowda vs The Deputy Commissioner Bangalore ... on 25 June, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT Of} KARNATAKA AT BAN£9ALQ§§E
oamza THIS THE 25*" may OF JUNE 'f%_j ".
BEFORE :
me HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Mo+«:a;«§§z $ H.é§!§!TAI$i»§::§@C?'<!;E:5}K§?V':'
mm emlzw No. £1193 o§'2o~o7 (&..%~W;...Asz.:;%2) % A
Between :
Smt. Ragarnma
Wjo late Rajugowda
Aged about 63 years
R / a Henganoor "Viilagc
Kasaba Hobii A ' ._
Channapatna'T3.lg;{k5 '
Bangalore ;'i2ural_DAi$f,3'Vic:§;V. _ .' ..Petiti0ner
{By 33-; R. séthgsh, vA:.:g',)'
gag. : % X
'V The..':I3ep§1_ty Qomnfiésiefim'
'Eanga1o:'e:Z«?u'ra}. District
_ 2. 'I"l*xe' Assiétaf13:..C{2Iizmisaioner
Baiagalorc. Rf.irjal District
Bangalolfi.
" H " 1 4."I'h<-T1 %'_I'ahéii<;lar
* . _ "Charinapatna Taluk
_ Ban-gfiore Rural District.
' 1... _, Jayaiakshmaxnma
W] G iate Chikka Yellegowda
Age. Major, R/a Sunnaghatta.
Viliage, Kasaba Hobii
Channapatna Taiuk
Bangalore District. . .Respnn_<;1_¢nt3
(By Sri Satyanarayana Singh, HCGR, for R} to R3;
Sri K. Hanumantharayappa, Adv, for R4)
-~----.
It
This writ petition is filcd under-'fiftickes '0f;tf1n
Constitution of india praying to quash; the».prtiar'--nTdatéd. 2§'.1_~2£){}7
passcd by the first respondent Vida A.h.ne3:_1n'e--A 'and..g¢$torfé«._.the
831116.
This writ petition coming on«.f61"'. preiin:§na¢r3'..'-iheiizfiné in 'B' group this day, the Court made the fnilbwfing :
The order dated "-by the Deputy Commissioner, Revision Petition No. vthe. revision petition for default is called in qim:-_s4€icrn'ii3 The nidar... «sheet maintained by the Deputy V.'-.Qunifi1i$sipnnf<»n.&discloses that on 21.11.2006 both the parties were'. the Beputy Commissioner. 011 the next 'date i.c.. on 29.1.2001 again the advocates on both x V' ..siddesn~-._.wevn: absent. Having no other go, the Deputy
--. fnflnnnninsinner dismissed the matmr for default.
3. The action of the Deputy Commissioner in 'dismissing the revision petitrien for default caxmot be said to be ermnenus.
'W
- 3 -
Even before this Court, the petitioner has not aven1ed___any reason, much less, valid reason for remaining absent %r_ei'<)I"'eVfi:1.Ae Deputy Commissioner on the relevant date of hean-fa: "
petition is drafted in most casual mane A xzer. H V course, this Court would not have order. However, having mgaxii. the '-pilight .pa;1'ties* . L' involved in the matter, 'apt the writ petition. Because of jfault t'IieVeiV;$2§ii»«v'<3eatcs, the parties should not sufl'er.v V the concerned advocate in drafling the wxii petifion; "clieiits will sufler. In saw of the same. this one more opportunity to the _ pefificfigef. the foflowing order is made [ Lfprgies-..vdated 29.1.2007 passed by the 1st respondent
--LI3ep'e'T:"1__t},r1 Bangalore Rural District, in Revision V V' _ Petikiix. N£i.16..'§/ 20135-06 vide A3:mexure~'A', is set aside. The " ~ .. efiattey' iséemjtted hack to the Deputy Comxnissioner for fresh e.C0§;iSi.'1efafi'on of the matter. However, petiiionefs advocate shah pay costs of Rs.2,000/ --. As the Iespondenfs counsel has V' -4- also remained absent, he is not entitled fer costs. A' shall be fa-Ifeitcd to the State.
fibklf