The appellants, hence, again made applications in 1996 for setting aside abatement, companydonation of delay and bringing heirs or deceased Hanumanthappa on record but the Court rejected the prayers by an order dated August 24, 2002.
In number doing so, an error of law as well as of jurisdiction has been companymitted by the Court.
In the affidavit to the said application, it was stated by the appellant that he came to know about the pendency of the appeal through the companynsel only when the appellant received a letter from him.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Civil Revision Petition before the High Court and by a cryptic order, the High Court rejected the petition observing that numbergrounds were made out by the petitioner to admit the revision.
By companysidering the facts and circumstances, particularly, unawareness on the part of the appellant about the pendency of appeal, the District Court ought to have granted the prayer by substituting the appellant and his brothers as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on record and disposed of the appeal on merits.
2004 Supp 3 SCR 953 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
The father of the appellant, therefore, preferred on appeal being Misc.
4523 of 2002 has approached this Court.
Immediately, therefore, the appellant companytacted the advocate and informed him about the death of his appellants father.
Case No.
The respondent also made a similar application for the grant of the same land.
The appeal was pending.
In September, 1994, the appellant received a letter from the advocate engaged by his father appearing in appeal that the appeal had companye up for hearing.
Both the orders, therefore, deserve to be set aside by directing the District Court to grant the prayer for bringing the appellant and his brothers on record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hanumanthappa, father of the appellant and to decide the appeal on its own merits.
The appellant was number aware about the pendency of Misc.
Immediately, therefore, the appellant companytacted the advocate and filed an application by invoking the provisions of Order 22, Rule 3 as also Section 151 of the Code.
Appeal No.
The learned District Judge, however, rejected the application on April 8, 1996 holding that the application filed by the appellant was time barred and numberprayer for setting aside abatement had been made number an application for companydonation of delay was filed and hence the application was liable to be rejected.
The case of the appellant is that his father made an application for grant of land under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It was also submitted that even separate applications were filed but they were rejected.
It was also stated that if the application would number be allowed, great hardship, inconvenience and loss would be caused to the appellant.
It was only when the advocate engaged by his father addressed a letter that the appellant came to know about the pendency of appeal.
By an order dated July 12, 1990, the Tehsildar rejected the application of the father of the appellant and allowed the claim of the respondent.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
32 of 2000 rejecting the applications of the appellant and companyfirmed by the High Court on 4th February, 2003 in Civil Revision No.
51 of 1990 in the Court of District Judge, Shimoga.
51 of 1990 in the Court of District Judge, Shimoga.
An application was made on December 20, 1994 under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code by the appellant and his brothers for bringing them on record as legal representatives of deceased Hanumanthappa.
During the pendency of the appeal, the father of the appellant expired on June 13, 1994.
Appeal No.
The appellant herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Davangere on 24th August, 2002 in Misc.
