NARAYANAMMA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was aggrieved by the refusal of the registration of a document by the concerned Sub-Registrar. On that refusal, he preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act to the Registrar. That appeal was filed within the time prescribed. The notice was issued to the parties and after several adjournments the case was posted for orders on 17-8-1984. On the representation made by the Counsel for the appellant it was re-opened and further adjournments were granted and finally came up for hearing on 23-2-1985 before the Appellate Authority, namely, District Registrar, the first respondent herein. On that day, neither the petitioner nor the Counsel was present. Therefore the first respondent dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by that order which is at Annexure-B to the petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for redress, inter alia, contending that the order of dismissal for non-prosecution is without jurisdiction, contrary to prescribed procedure and otherwise unlawful, having failed to get a restoration of the appeal as is evident from Annexure-E to the petition. The above facts set out are not disputed and are apparent from the contents of the impugned order.

(2.) Sri G. S. Visweswara, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule 179 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, which provides for the procedure for disposing of appeal. That rule has altogether six sub-rules, none of which provide specifically for dismissal for default. Sub-rule (5) reads as follows :

(3.) I do not think any other sub-rule or Rule 179 has even a remote connection with what has happened in the petitioner's case.