SURESH Vs. PAPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 12/12/2022 passed in Civil Misc.No.372/2018 on the file of the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, dismissing the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C., in coming to the conclusion that the P.Ws.1 and 2 have not shown any sufficient cause for restoration of Misc.No.211/2017. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that when an appeal is filed in R.A.No.13/2015 in the year 2015, the same was dismissed in 2017. Thereafter, Misc. No.211/2017 was filed for restoration of the regular appeal and the same was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, Civil Misc. No.372/2018 is filed and the same is also dismissed and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause is shown while dismissing the petition and erroneously taken note of the order sheet pertaining to R.A.No.13/2015, wherein also in Para No.10 observed that when the matter was listed several times, the counsel has not argued the matter and even though the miscellaneous is listed for consideration from 12/6/2015 till 20/8/2018, there was no representation. Hence, the appellants have not made out any cause. The very observation of the Trial Court is erroneous and the Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity and failed to accept the sufficient cause shown by the appellants that the matter was kept pending for negotiation in respect of the suit properties before the relatives and panchayathdars in the village and the very reason that panchayath was held is not disputed and inspite of it, dismissed the same.