B.V. Yogananda & Anr. Vs. N.A. Raghava & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 780 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(Civil)No. 982 of 1999)
Petitioner: B.V. Yogananda & Anr.
Respondent: N.A. Raghava & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 780 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(Civil)No. 982 of 1999)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 01, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE LAW
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 22 Rules 3, 9, 10 with Constitution Article 136 – Orders in favour of tenants by Land Reform Tribunal – Challenge by land-holder in High Court in 1993 – Petitioner dying on 19.6.93 – Death not brought to notice of Court, which allowed writ on merit on 12.12.94 – On application by respondents, orders recalled and petition dismissed as abated on 12.3.97 – Application by heirs of petitioner to recall that order and to bring LRs on record – Dismissal by High Court – Justification. Held that High Court ought to have condoned the delay and abatement. Appeal allowed. Matter restored to Single Bench. (Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the land holder questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 3285 of 1998. By that order the Division Bench refused to interfere with order of the Learned Single Judge dated 24.6.98 made in Writ Petition No. 18399 of 1993. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no warrant to condone the delay of 5 years in filing of the applica-tion for bringing legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner on record.
3. The facts of the case are that the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 22.4.93, which went in favour of the respondents who claim to be tenants was, challenged in the writ petition which was filed in 1993 by the land holder Veerappa. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the said Veerappa died on 19.6.93. The death of the writ petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Court and the writ petition was allowed on 12.12.94 on merits. On the ground that by the date of the dispo-sal of the writ petition the writ petitioner was dead, the re-spondents in the writ petition filed an application to recall the order dated 12.12.94. That application was allowed and the writ petition was reopened. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed as having abated on 12.3.97. It was at that stage that applica-tions were filed for recalling the order dated 12.3.97 and for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased writ petition-er on record.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and for the respondents and perused the reasons for the delay in filing the applications, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the applications for bringing the legal representatives on record for setting aside the abatement ought to have been condone by the High Court.
5. We accordingly set aside the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petition as well as on the writ appeal, We also set aside the order dated 12.3.97 dismissing the writ petition as having abated. The applications for setting aside the abatement and the application for bringing the legal representatives of the writ petitioner on record are allowed. The writ petition will now be taken up by the Learned Single Judge for disposal in accor-dance with law.
6. The High Court may permit the parties to file additional affidavits. The appeal is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for disposing it of on merits in accordance with law.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the land holder questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 3285 of 1998. By that order the Division Bench refused to interfere with order of the Learned Single Judge dated 24.6.98 made in Writ Petition No. 18399 of 1993. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no warrant to condone the delay of 5 years in filing of the applica-tion for bringing legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner on record.
3. The facts of the case are that the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 22.4.93, which went in favour of the respondents who claim to be tenants was, challenged in the writ petition which was filed in 1993 by the land holder Veerappa. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the said Veerappa died on 19.6.93. The death of the writ petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Court and the writ petition was allowed on 12.12.94 on merits. On the ground that by the date of the dispo-sal of the writ petition the writ petitioner was dead, the re-spondents in the writ petition filed an application to recall the order dated 12.12.94. That application was allowed and the writ petition was reopened. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed as having abated on 12.3.97. It was at that stage that applica-tions were filed for recalling the order dated 12.3.97 and for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased writ petition-er on record.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and for the respondents and perused the reasons for the delay in filing the applications, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the applications for bringing the legal representatives on record for setting aside the abatement ought to have been condone by the High Court.
5. We accordingly set aside the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petition as well as on the writ appeal, We also set aside the order dated 12.3.97 dismissing the writ petition as having abated. The applications for setting aside the abatement and the application for bringing the legal representatives of the writ petitioner on record are allowed. The writ petition will now be taken up by the Learned Single Judge for disposal in accor-dance with law.
6. The High Court may permit the parties to file additional affidavits. The appeal is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for disposing it of on merits in accordance with law.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
