(1.) The petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of Sri.Gopala Shetty, who was respondent No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAT', for short) in Appeal No.1071/2006. The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on 18/12/2015. But, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Sri.Gopala Shetty had died 31/8/2014 and the factum of the death of Sri.Gopala Shetty was also within the knowledge of the appellants before the Tribunal. In the impugned order, it is been pointed out that on failure of the appellants to file necessary application to bring the legal representatives of Sri.Gopala Shetty on record, the appeal stands abated insofar as respondent No.1 is concerned.
(2.) On the previous occasion, learned Counsel Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.3, who was the appellant before the Tribunal had submitted that he would take instructions from the party and make his submissions. The learned Counsel had submitted that he would find out as to whether any application was filed before the Tribunal seeking to bring the legal representatives of Sri.Gopala Shetty on record. Learned Counsel has today submitted that no such application seem to have been filed before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as abated insofar as respondent No.1 is concerned. Learned Counsel would however submit that the benefit of the orders passed by the Tribunal will not enure to the appellant or his legal heirs if the appeal has been abated as against the contesting respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel would submit that the writ petition may be allowed while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and enable the appellant to file necessary application to bring the legal representatives of Sri.Gopala Shetty on record.
(3.) The submissions of the learned Counsel Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, is placed on record.