Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S RACHAIAH, J
STEPHEN GNANAVEL – Appellant
Versus
C. PALANI Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE S/O CHINNAPPA MANDRI, SUSHMA LAKSH MI DEAD BY LRS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's counsel argues dismissal was premature. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court finds dismissal sans opportunity was unjust. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court orders case to be reinstated for further proceedings. (Para 7) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 is dispensed with.
4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, it is appropriate to refer the order of the Trial Court , which reads as under:
Already sufficient opportunity given to the complainant to appear before the court. The party is not diligent but still on humanitarian ground and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the court has adjourned the case several times.
This case is one of the oldest cases of this court.
The Hon'ble Apex court in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [(2011)9 SCC 678 held "…A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit whether the plaintiff or the defendant must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they d
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
