Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Chikka Muniyappa (D) by LRs. Smt. Munithirumalamma – Appellant
Versus
Narayanamma (D) by LRs. Vema Narayanappa – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 337 of 2020
Decided On : 19-11-2025
For the Appellants : Aditya Bhat, Ganapathi Subbaraya Bhat
For the Respondents: J. Prakash, J.R. Jagadish
Failure of legal representation should not prevent parties from pursuing justice; courts may allow remedies to avoid procedural dismissal when advocate negligence is evident.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) and Section 151 - Revision petition against dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - Court emphasized that parties should not suffer due to an advocate's negligence, thus allowing restoration of the suit on payment of costs, emphasizing need to expedite resolution of long-pending cases. (Paras 8, 16, 18)
(B) Legal Representation - Responsibility of advocates for their clients - The failure to act by an advocate cannot hinder a party's legal rights; appropriate actions may be allowed to rectify procedural errors while penalizing the errant party. (Paras 8, 17)
Facts of the case:
The revision petition arises from a suit filed for specific performance of a contract, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, following a history of appeals and procedural issues, including the involvement of subsequent purchasers.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in granting one final opportunity to restore the suit with costs to balance interests of all parties involved.
Issues: The central issue revolved around whether procedural dismissal, influenced by advocate conduct, justified the refusal of opportunity to plaintiffs seeking justice in property matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while negligence by an advocate is taken seriously, it should not result in perpetual disadvantage to the party whom the advocate represents; thus, restoration of the suit was deemed necessary to uphold the interests of justice overall.
Result: Revision petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the suit and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. details on the dismissal of appeal based on representation. (Para 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by the parties regarding representation issues. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on counsel's conduct. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. principle on advocate negligence and party rights. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. decision to restore the suit with conditions. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri.Aditya Bhat, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Ganapathi Subbaraya Bhat, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri J.Prakash, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 and Sri.J.R.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.10. Respondent No.9 is served and unrepresented.
2. Present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division and CJM, Chikkaballapur in Miscellaneous Appeal No.28/2017, dismissing the Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1 Sri.Doddamuniyappa filed a suit in O.S.No.971/1993 for the relief of specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell against Smt.Narayanamma, who was the vendor. Suit came to be decreed.
3.2 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Sri.C.Venkateshappa, who was impleaded as a necessary party in the execution proceedings filed an appeal in R.A.No.45/2005 on the strength of the sale deed executed by Smt.Narayanamma in his favour. Said appeal on contest came to be dismissed.
3.3 Matter was carried before this Court in the second appeal in R.S.A.No.620/2009 and this Court by considered order allowed the said appeal with a direction and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity for the subsequent purchaser Sri.C.Venkateshappa, respondent No.10 in this revision petition.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the said order of the High Court passed in the second appeal, a review petition came to be filed. Review petition also came to be dismissed and thereafter revision petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.10913/2011. It is in dispute, but grounds of appeal by review petitioner is referred by trial Judge. On record it is found that said special leave petition also came to be rejected and the remittance of the proceedings to the trial Court to provide an opportunity for the respondent No.10 in this revision petition became final.
4. Sri.C.Venkateshappa was thus impleaded as a party in O.S.No.971 of 1993 and the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff.
5. At that juncture, first plaintiff- Doddamuniyappa stopped showing interest to prosecute the suit further. Second plaintiff having died, the revision petitioners being the legal representatives of the second plaintiff, were brought on record as in the place of second plaintiff.
6. Since there was no proper prosecution of the suit, suit in O.S.No.971/1993 came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. Said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.29164/2012 and this Court in the said writ petition, noted that for the fault of the first plaintiff, the entire suit ought not to have been rejected and directed that the second plaintiff to continue the suit.
7. Thereafter an application came to be filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit and suit to be decided on merits. Said application came to be dismissed and an appeal came to be filed against the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC in M.A.No.28/2017.
8. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records dismissed the appeal interalia holding in paragraph No.13 as under:
"13. The learned counsel for plaintiff Sri.N.V.S. himself submitted before the court that, the suit may be dismissed as his clients are not approaching him to give instructions. When a counsel on record makes any submission before the court and
