IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.649 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, GUBBI CIRCLE, GUBBI – 572216.
3. THE REGIONAL AND SOCIAL FOREST OFFICER, GUBBI CIRCLE, GUBBI – 572216. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP) AND PADMANABHASHRESTY, S/O. SRI. VENKATARAMANASHRESTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CHELUR, GUBBI TALUK.
GUBBI – 572216. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.6.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.191/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (J.D) AND JMFC GUBBI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners-Government is in revision under Section 115 of CPC, assailing the order dated 28-6-2011 in R.A.No.29/2007, by which I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently the appeal.
2. The petitioners herein are defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.191/2004. For convenience, the parties would be referred as they stand in the original suit.
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.16/P1 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas situated at Kurubarahally village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. The plaintiff contended that he had purchased the said property from his vendor under registered sale deed dated 11-3-2002. The suit schedule property was granted to one Veerabhadraiah in the year 1984 from whom the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that the suit schedule property is the forest property which is notified under Government order No.R.11821-4-Ft-134- 17-6 dated 06-6-1918. Further it was contended that without permission of the Government, the forest land would not have been granted to any one. It was also contended that the defendants have grown Neelgiri Plantation in the suit property by spending huge amount and the plaintiffs were not given any occasion to raise any Neelgiri plantations. After trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the suit property of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed R.A.No.29/2007 and as there was delay in filing the regular appeal, the defendants also filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of three months in filing the appeal. The 1st Appellate Court, after an enquiry under impugned order dismissed I.A.No.1 and consequently the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court in this revision petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to “whether the 1st Appellate Court is justified in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the appeal”. Answer to the said point is in the negative for the following reasons.
5. The petitioners-defendants submit that the 1st Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property is a Government land and the same was declared as forest land in the year 1918 itself. Further it is stated that the suit- O.S.No.191/2004 was decreed on 22-1-2007 and defendants filed appeal on 03-8-2007. Immediately after decree, the defendants applied for certified copy and after obtaining the same, the Government examined the merits and demerits and took a decision to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the Government order was issued on 30-3-2007 to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed on 03-8-2007. Even though the petitioners explained the delay assigning proper reasons, the 1st Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same. In that circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the revision petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submits that the 1st Appellate Court rightly rejected I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that the defendants have failed to properly explain the delay in preferring the appeal. Thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
7. Condonation of delay is discretion of the court. No party would approach the court belatedly and deliberately to defeat his own right. Here it is a case of the defendants that the suit schedule property is Government land and it is declared as forest land in the year 1918 itself. The defendants are dealing with public property. After trial, the decree was passed on 22-1-2007, whereas the appeal was filed on 03-8-2007 after obtaining the Government Order. It is also stated that after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree, the entire papers were sent to Government on 10-3-2007 and thereafter the same was processed and the Government appears to have taken a decision to file the appeal. There is an approximate delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal and the reason for delay appears to be on the procedural aspect involved in the Government. The delay has been explained by the defendants. While considering the condonation of delay, the Court must always shall have liberal approach. The endeavour of the courts shall be towards rendering substantial justice and not to deny justice on technical grounds. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant only to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. Hence, I am of the view that the petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in R.A.No.29/2007 is allowed. 1st Appellate Court is directed to consider R.A.No.29/2007 on merits and pass judgment in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed off.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.3/2016 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ