VENKATESWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE TRUST CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI NO. 834-A, RT NAGAR BANGALORE-560032 (N BASAPPA REDDY MAJOR-TRUSTEE AND OTHERS) Vs. SRI NARASARAJU MAJOR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER NO. 357, F BLOCK, 10TH MAIN ROAD SAHAKARA NAGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the plaintiffs before the Court below. They had instituted the suit for relief of permanent injunction against respondents/defendants. The suit was pending from the year 1997. Several interlocutory applications were filed and they were decided. The case was set down for plaintiffs evidence on 12.11.2009. Before that plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of plaint (IA. No. 17) and it was dismissed on 11.11.2009 and the case was adjourned to 12.11.2009. On 12.11.2009, an application was filed for adjournment of suit. The learned trial Judge taking into consideration that the suit for permanent injunction was pending from the year 1997 (for over a period of 12 years) and appellants have no impediment to adduce evidence, rejected the application and dismissed the suit for non prosecution. Therefore, they are before this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for appellants and learned Counsel for respondents.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge has not passed an exparte order, of dismissal for default. The application filed by plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1');">1 CPC was rejected and thereafter, suit was dismissed. Therefore, appellant could not have invoked provisions of Order 9 Rule 1');">9 CPC.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for appellants relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Alka Gupta Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta, AIR 2011 SC 9 would submit that a suit cannot be dismissed without trial, merely because the Court feels dissatisfied with the conduct of plaintiff