A.K.RAMKRISHNAN Vs. PARVATHY SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.03.2018 passed in R.A.No.245/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Session Judge at Mysore.

(2.) The respondent herein who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court i.e., III Addl. First Civil Judge at Mysore had filed the suit for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the plaint schedule property (staircase marked as 'DFGH' in the sketch) appended to the pliant alleged to be unauthorizedly constructed by the petitioners along with the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part by allowing the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's free movement in the passage as stated in the schedule to the plaint. The respondent preferred a Regular Appeal against the said judgment and decree in R.A.No.126/2014 and the same was re-numbered as R.A.No.245/2016 with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 510 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the I.A.No.1 condoning the delay of 510 days in filing the appeal. Hence, these writ petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the First Appellate Court after holding an enquiry on the I.A. No.1 filed by the respondent and discarding the evidence of the respondent for not tendering herself for cross-examination despite adequate opportunity provided and again relying on the affidavit of the respondent to condone the delay of 510 days is unjustifiable and deserves to be set aside.