V SHARADA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Order 43, Rule 1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and order dated 27-5-2009 passed in Misc. No. 593 of 2003 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the dismissal order dated 9-7-2003 passed in O.S.No.8426 of 1998.

(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents, this matter was heard on merits. The Trial Court records were also called and I have perused the same.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the objection statement as under: THE averments made in the affidavit were all denied. Respondents 2 and 3 state that the suit property was duly notified and acquired for the formation of layout. Even the petitioner herself had admitted the acquisition. When the petitioner was not at all in possession, the question of interference nor handing over possession to respondents 1 and 2 by the petitioner does not arise. THE petitioner with an intention to grab the BDA property has filed the original suit in O.S.No.8426 of 1998. THE petitioner was not at all diligent in prosecuting the case nor she has assisted the Court for an early disposal of the suit.