STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HULKOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties and questions arising are common to these two appeals, they are disposed of by a common judgment. They are by the State of Karnataka represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwar, and against the order passed on I.A.s.II and III, in Miscellaneous Appeals 21 and 22 of 1973 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar, whereby he has refused to set aside abatement and permit the legal representatives of the respondent to be brought on record.

(2.) The miscellaneous appeals in question have been preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the awards made by the Civil Judge on a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It would appear that when they were pending the respondent-claimant died on 17-4-1974. The appellant-State came to know of it only on 6-6-1974 through a memo filed, by the Counsel for the deceased respondent. Thereupon the appellant made enquires and aflei verifying the fart cf death rf the respondent and ascertaining the names and addresses of his legal representatives, filed applications under rules 4 and 9 of Order 22 CPC on 17-9-1974. The learned District Judge dismissed the applications holding inter alia that the grounds urged in support of the application for setting aside abatement were vague and insufficient. Hence the appeals.

(3.) At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to certain enumerations contained in two of the decisions of the Supreme Court which have a bearing on the question on hand. In Union of India v. Ram Charan, AIR. 1964 SC. 215, it is enounced thus :