IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6048 OF 2018 (CPC) BETWEEN:
Smt. Guramma, W/o. Late Nagappa, Aged about 56 years, R/at Palvathimmanahalli Village, Deshahalli Panchayat, Bangarpet-563114.
(By Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Srinivas, S/o. Late Yellappa and Late Kuppamma, Aged about 46 years, 2. Sri. Nandisha, S/o. Late Yellappa and Late Kuppamma, Aged about 41 years, 3. Sri. Jeevendra, S/o. Late Yellappa and Late Kuppamma, Aged about 38 years, 4. Sri. Arun Kumar, S/o. Late Yellappa and Late Kuppamma, Aged about 35 years, …Appellant 5. Smt. Muniyamma, W/o. Late Munivenkatappa, Aged about 76 years, Respondents No.1 to 5 Are R/o. Palavathimmanahalli, Deshahalli Panchayat, Bangarpet-563114.
6. Sri. Nagaraja, S/o. Late Muniyappa, Aged about 38 years, 7. Sri. Ganesha, S/o. Late Muniyappa, Aged about 36 years, 8. Smt. Renuka, D/o. Late Muniyappa, Aged about 34 years, Respondents No.6 to 8 Are R/o. Palavathimmanahalli, Deshahalli Panchayat, Bangarpet-563114.
9. Sri. Narayanappa, S/o. Late Guruppa, Aged about 65 years, Gandi Nagar, Kolar Town-563101.
... Respondents This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of CPC, against the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Mis.No.50/2017, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kolar, (sitting at KGF), dismissing the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 19 Read with Section 151 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Mis.No.50/2017 filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF). The impugned order shows that after dismissal of the appeal RA No.29/2009, application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed seeking restoration of the appeal. It was dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter a second application under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC was filed along with another application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1950 days. The trial Court has come to conclusion that the second application is not maintainable in view of dismissal of the first application. Apart from that, the trial Court has also held that the reasons given by the applicant for the delay are not sufficient.
2. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Second application under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC is not maintainable. There is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
KMV/-
sd/- JUDGE