Sri. B.S. Kamate., learned counsel for appellants and

Smt. Pallavi S. Pachchapure., learned counsel for the

respondent has appeared in person.

This appeal is from the Court of the Civil Judge

(Sr. Dn), Hukkeri confirming the judgment and decree

passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Hukkeri.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the

Trial Court.

4.

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of

permanent injunction stating that he is the absolute owner

3

of the suit property and enjoying the same. It is also stated

that on 05.09.1991 the Tahasildar, Hukkeri granted the suit

property to him and the Khata was mutated the defendants

have no right, title, or interest but they are trying to

interfere with his possession and hence the suit was filed.

The defendants appeared in the suit. Based on the

pleading, the Trial Court considered the following points.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in

lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit

property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged

interference by the defendants of his lawful

possession and enjoyment of the suit

property?

3. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief as

sought?

4. To what order or decree?

It is said that the Trial Court without giving a proper

opportunity to file a written statement and without

4

recording the evidence of the plaintiff and defendants

proceeded to decree the suit. On appeal, the Appellate

Court dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation.

Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section

100 of CPC is filed.

5.

Sri. B.S. Kamate., learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the Judgment and Decree passed by

both Courts are contrary to the law.

Next, he submits that the First Appellate Court

committed an error in holding that the appeal was time-

barred.

A further submission is made that the Trial Court

passed the Judgment and Decree on 19.08.2006. The

defendants applied for the issue of certified copies on

19.08.2006. The certified copy of the Judgment and Decree

was issued on 14.09.2006. The last date for filing an appeal

was 14.10.2006. It is also submitted that the 14^th of

October 2006 was the Second Saturday being the holiday,

5

the appeal was filed on 16.10.2006 and therefore, there

was no delay in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the First

Appellate Court is not correct in dismissing the appeal as

time-barred and dismissing the appeal without hearing the

matter on merits.

It is also contended that the First Appellate Court has

concluded that the Judgment and Decree passed by the

Trial Court are perverse, illegal, and capricious, and ought

to have allowed the appeal.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle the

Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court as well as

the Trial Court are illegal and not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed.

Learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in

KARNATAKA

SMALL

INDUSTRIES

MARKETING

CORPORATION LTD., VS. M/S.PADMA TEXTILES BY

ITS PROPRIETOR reported in ILR 2007 KAR 2844.

6

6.

Smt.Pallavi Pachchapure., learned counsel for

the respondent justified the Judgment and Decree of both

the Courts below.

Next, she submits that the defendants did not file a

written statement. Hence, the Trial Court justified in

decreeing the suit.

A further submission is made that where the

defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the

Court to pronounce Judgment based on the facts contained

in the plaint.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that every

allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by

necessary implication, or stated to be admitted in the

pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. In

the present case, the defendants have failed to file their

pleadings, hence the Trial Court proceeded to pass the

Judgment and Decree.

7