In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.
So, the short question, which arises for companysideration in this appeal, is whether the Appellate Court and the High Court were justified in dismissing the application M.A.No.77/2014 filed by the appellantAuthority defendant and were, therefore, justified in refusing to restore their first appeal.
The appellantAuthority, therefore, filed an application before the Appellate Court praying for recall of the order dated 25.04.2014 and sought restoration of their appeal for its hearing on the merits.
Heard Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned companynsel for the appellantAuthority and Mr. Anand Sanjay Nuli, learned companynsel for the respondent.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order of the Appellate Court, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the defendant in this Court.
On that day, the appellants companynsel did number appear when the appeal was called on for hearing and, therefore, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in default.
The appellantAuthority, on being served filed their written statement.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and also the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge in M.A. No.77 of 2014 and, in companysequence, allow the application filed by the appellantAuthority defendant and recall the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Appellate Court.
By order dated 29.06.2016, the Appellate Court dismissed the application, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition by the appellantAuthority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
By judgment decree dated 20.03.2012, the Trial Court decreed the respondents suit and passed a decree against the appellantAuthority in relation to the suit land.
The parties adduced their evidence.
2442 situated in Vijaynagara, 2nd stage, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru hereinafter referred to as suit land .
The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction in relation to the land bearing No.
The respondent filed a civil suit O.S. No.685/2006 against the appellantAuthority in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Small Causes Court, Mysuru.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The appellantMysore Development Authority in short, the Authority is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises.
The appellantAuthority felt aggrieved and filed first appeal R.A.No.370/2012 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.02.05 This appeal is filed against the final judgment 173824 IST Reason and order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.34313 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
It was, however, number numbericed and the High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits.
