LAWS(KAR)-1989-3-2

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

Decided On March 20, 1989
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
MANAGING DIRECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. We consider this appeal to be one in somewhat unusual circumstances. The appellant is the State of Karnataka.

(2.) We will refer to the parties in the course of this judgment by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff doing business in quarry- ing Shahabad stones filed the suit in O.S.No. 149 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Gulbarga for permanent injunction restrain- ing the defendant- State of Karnataka from collecting dead rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Shahabad stones and Rs. 500/- per acre for sand contrary to the provision for payment of dead rent of Rs. 500/- per acre for Shahabad stones and Rs. 50/- per acre for sand in the lease. The suit was presented on 13-4-1987 on which date the Court directed notice to the defendant returnable by 18-4-1987. We will make a reference to it later in the course of the order. However, the judgment under appeal states that the vacation intervened and therefore the learned District Judge as Vacation Judge called for the records of the lower Court and received them on 25-4-1987 and posted the matter to 27-4-1987 for hearing. On 27-4-1987 he passed a preliminary order stating that the State shall not demand dead rent from the plaintiff and that was to say that sufficient time was granted to file counter and written statement. Thereafter- wards, the case was posted to 7-5-1987. On 7-5-1987 the suit was disposed of by the judgment under appeal. By the said judgment, the learned District Judge decreed the suit despite the request made by the Government Pleader to permit him to file counter and written statement. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the ground that there was no adequate opportunity to defend the suit and that, in any event, there was no need for the Vacation Judge to pass a final decree when, in the given circumstances, it was sufficient if he had granted temporary injunction, which alone had been prayed for in I.As. No. I and II.