Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Ganganarasaiah, S/o Late Araledibbada Thimmaiah – Appellant
Versus
Nagamma, W/o Kempanna – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments against the restoration based on lack of diligence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's careful review of the records and plaintiff's reasons for absence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. need for a balanced approach favoring justice for both parties. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final order for restoration with enhanced costs. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri. H. Kantharaja, learned senior counsel for Sri. H.K. Kenchegowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Hemalathan Mahishi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the restoration of the suit by allowing the Misc. No.6/2021 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit in O.S.No.1200/2009 which was dismissed for non prosecution by Order dated 19.02.2021.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitioner as under:
3.1 A suit came to be filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru District which was re-numbered after the vacation as O.S. No.1200/2009 with the following reliefs in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as
In matters of suit restoration, courts should prioritize justice and merits over default while ensuring adequate compensation for the opposing party's hardships.
The court emphasized that technicalities should not be allowed to annul the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities, and that substantial justice should be done to the liti....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code does not apply in a suit for partition, since the right to enforce partition is a legal incident of a joint tenancy, and as long as such tenancy subsists, any of....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application to restore a suit dismissed for default, finding no sufficient cause for the appellants' absence during proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
