STATE Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, which is before us, being referred for hearing and disposal by a Division Bench, we are concerned and have to deal with the scope and operation of sub-rule (1)of R. 3A of O. 41 of the C.P.C 1908 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The material facts, which have given rise to the filing of this revision petition, lie in a narrow compass. The State of Karnataka (for short 'the State') presented in the Court of District Judge, Gulbarga (for short 'the appellate Court') a time barred appeal. But, that appeal, when presented, was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. However, such an application came to be filed subsequently. The appellate Court, which registered the said time barred appeal as R.A. No. 55/83, numbered the said application as I.A.I in that appeal. Later, when the appellate Court took up the time barred appeal together with the application for condonation of delay for hearing, a preliminary objection, to wit, that time barred appeal having been presented without being accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as required under sub-rule (11 of R. 3A of O. 41 of the Code was liable to be dismissed in limine, appears to have been raised relying upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, in Madhukar Daso Deshpande v Anant Nilkandha Deshpande, (1983) 2 Kant LJ 15 (AIR 1984 Kar 40). That preliminary objection having been upheld by the appellate Court, by its order dt. 24th July 1984, the appeal itself has come to be dismissed. The validity of that order has been assailed by the State in the present revision petition. This is how, we are concerned and have to deal with the scope and operation of sub-rule (1) of R. 3A of O. 41 of the Code, in the light of the arguments addressed from the Bar.

(3.) Sub-rule (1) of R. 3A of O. 41 of the Code reads :