CHANABASAVVA Vs. CHANDRAPPA SANGAPPA PILLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S. No.118/1996 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadag sitting at Laxmeshwar dated 22.02.2011 in Misc. No.20/2009 have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court contending inter alia that lower Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 19 on account of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay in filing the restoration petition being dismissed since delay ought to have been condoned.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Shri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Ankalakoti, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the order passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Respondent herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No.118/1996 and had filed a suit for declaration and injunction which suit came to be decreed and being aggrieved by same, an appeal came to be filed in R.A. No.63/2004 by appellant herein. On service of notice, respondent plaintiff appeared and contested the matter. The order sheet of R.A. No.63/2004 made available during course of his arguments by Shri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would disclose that matter was being adjourned from time to time for hearing the arguments on main matter. It would also indicate that on many number of occasions appellants and his counsel have remained absent. It is no doubt true that when the matter is entrusted to the counsel physical presence of the appellants may not be necessary until and unless directed by the Court.