T.V. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA Vs. KEMPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, listed for admission alter notice to the respondents who, though served are absent and unrepresented, is finally heard and disposed of by this order. The unsuccessful legal representatives of the deceased defendants in O. S. 283/94 having suffered a judgment and decree dt. 27/2/2002 of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn. ) & JMFC. Tumkur, allowing the suit and directing them to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule 'B' item property to the plaintiff declared to be its absolute owner and not to interfere with the possession of said property, filed R. A. 162/08 before the I Addl. District Judge. Tumkur, together with I. A. 1/06 to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which when allowed by judgment and decree dt. 25/11/2010, the plaintiffs have presented this second appeal.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, perused the pleadings and examined the judgment and decree as well as the records of the courts below, the following substantial question of law arises for decision making:

(3.) The order dt. 14/7/2006 on I. A. No. 1 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, when perused, discloses that the IA was supported by the affidavit of the 1st appellant/1st defendant, alleging that the 3rd defendant, none other than her sibling and daughter of the deceased defendant, when brought on record as his legal representative, in the suit, was entrusted with the conducting of the case, had joined hands with the plaintiffs and did not inform the outcome of the suit, while the delay was occasioned since she is a poor lady unable to meet the expenses. The lower Appellate Court declined to accept the allegation against the 3rd defendant, nevertheless, took a lenient view to condone the delay of 1450 days on the premise that the appellant was a poor woman unable to meet expenses in filing the appeal within time. This reason, in my considered opinion, is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union Of India vs. Keb, 1987 ILR(Kar) 2552, whereunder it is held that the object of Laws of Limitation are laws of repose and peace and are founded on public-policy intended to eliminate the unsettling influence of perpetual threats of litigation and that they are intended to quiet stale demands. In addition, there is nothing on record to show why the other appellants did not file the appeal within time, in other words failed to show sufficient cause. Yet another reason is the fact that the order sheet discloses that IA was heard and order dt. 14.7.2006 passed allowing the I. A. without notice to the plaintiff/respondents, thus following a perverse procedure.