SHARANAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original appeal before Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4 remained absent. Therefore, he has filed a memo before this Court for dispensation of notice to the 4th respondent in the present writ petition. The said submission is placed on record. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed at the risk of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the endorsement dated 19.11.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for default and also to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the application filed under Order 9, Rule 4 r/w Sec. 9, CPC.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 08.04.2012, she filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 06.09.2016 dismissed the appeal for default. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for restoration of appeal under Order 9, Rule 4 r/w Sec. 9, Civil Procedure Code and also application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The Assistant Commissioner even without issuing notice to the respondents proceeded to dismiss the applications mainly on ground that the petitioner was continuos absent and the matter is of the year 2012-13. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.