STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BALEKAL KRISHNA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Misce No. 12/1974, whereby the learned Judge has set saide an ex-parte dismissal of a reference.

(2.) The matter arises in this way : The Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore, referred an acquisition matter to the Civil Court under S.18 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act. The Court registered the reference and issued notice to the claimant to appear before it on 1-2-1974. When the case was called on that day, the claimant was not present. Evidently, he was not served by that time. The Court did not issue any fresh notice instead, it adjourned the matter to 23-2-1974. In the meantime, the claimant was served on 5-2-1974 by the notice whereby he was called upon to appear on 1-2-1974. On 23-2-1974 when the case was called, none appeared for the claimant. The Court, therefore, made an order as follows: "Service held sufficient. The G.P. files memo of appearance for the Respondent. Claimant is absent and is placed ex-parte. Order on 28-2-1974." On 28-2-1974, the following order was passed: "Petition dismissed as it does not survive for consideration. No costs." What the Court meant by the above order, as it appears to me, is that since the claimant was not represented, the matter did not require consideration. The claimant, after coming to know of the dismissal of his case, filed an application praying for an order to set aside the ex-parte dismissal of his case. The application was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with S. 151 C.P.C. It was urged before the lower Court, for the Land Acquisition Officer, that the Court has no power to set aside its previous order either under Order 47 Rule 1 or under S. 151 C.P.C. The learned Judge, however, allowed the application by observing:

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal.