SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. AKHIL VEERASHAIVA MANDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 8 days in preferring the appeal. By an order made by this court on 22-1-1992 notice was directed to be issued. Accordingly notice has been served on the learned counsel who had appeared for the respondent (writ petitioner) in the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent, though served with the notice in the writ appeal, says that the notice should be issued to the respondent. This submission is untenable in view of Rule 32 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, regulating the writ appeals. Rule 32 of the rules reads:

(3.) Learned counsel submitted in many cases, when notice is ordered in writ appeals the Registry is insisting that in the absence of a specific order permitting the notice to be taken to the Advocate notice has to be taken to the party. If they have done so in any case, the concerned learned counsel should have told the Registry that no such order was necessary in view of Rule 32. However, the Registry shall take a note of this order for guidance hereafter.