KRISHNAPPA Vs. SUBBARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by one Krishnappa, who had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.155/1996, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2002 by the Addl. Civil Judge, KGF. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred R.A.No.197/2002 against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2002 and the matter was posted for arguments on 21.12.2009. The appellant herein did not address arguments. Hence, Court dismissed the appeal. In fact, it was the case of the appellant that due to absence of his advocate he could not address arguments.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent that another suit was filed bearing O.S.No.153/1996 for recovery of possession against the appellant herein. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondent Sri.Subbarayappa, who is deceased. One Sri.Naryanappa challenged the Judgment and decree in R.A.No.204/2002. On the said date of dismissal of the appeal, it is contended that the advocate representing the appellant was present before the Court. Despite being present before the Court, he has not filed any application seeking permission for presenting arguments on the very same day. The appellant denies the fact that the respondent-Subbarayappa has recovered the possession in Execution proceedings and sold suit schedule property to one Babu on 29.12.2014. Pursuant to the dismissal of RA No.204/2002, the matter was taken up in second appeal in RSA No.1715/2010, which again came to be dismissed on 04.12.2012. Main ground of appeal by the appellant in this appeal is that he was not given an opportunity to address the arguments as counsel was not present in the Court due to the fact that he was engaged in another Court.

(3.) It is noted that the appellant in his cross- examination has clearly deposed that as on the date of dismissal of RA No.197/2002 he and his counsel were present in the Court and did not file any application seeking permission to address the arguments, after the dismissal of the appeal. The learned trial Judge has noted this fact and came to a conclusion that the evidence of the appellant disproves the reason assigned by the appellant in restoration of his petition on the ground that he was not present before the Court.