Mehtabsab Vs. Yusuf and Another

Mehtabsab vs Yusuf and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Gulbarga Decided Feb 17, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1144172

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1144172
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga High Court
Judge: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Decided On: Feb 17, 2014
Case Number: Writ Petition No.85704 of 2012 & Writ Petition No. 101593 of 2013 (GM-AC)
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Motor Vehicles

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mehtabsab

Respondent

Yusuf and Another

Excerpt

.....and consequently condone the deiay in filing an application by setting aside the exparte award dated 13.09.2002 in mvc no.985/1995.) 1. the second additional district judge, bijapur, has refused to condone the delay in filing miscellaneous appeal no. 17/2008. 2. the records reveal that mvc no.985/ 1995 was disposed of on 13.09.2002 by mact-vi, bijapur. petitioner herein filed application for setting aside the exparte award dated 13.09.2002 in miscellaneous application no.55/2005 under order - ix rule 13 cpc. the same came to be dismissed by the first additional civil judge, senior division, bijapur, on 23.06.2008. the order passed in miscellaneous application no.55/2005 was assailed by the petitioner before the second additional district judge, bijapur, in miscellaneous appeal no. 17/2008 with the delay of 44 days. the first additional district court refused to condone the delay of 44 days by the impugned order. 3. since the valuable rights of the parties are involved in the appeal, the proper course to be adopted by the district court was to hear the appeal on merits and thereafter pass orders, which means, the delay ought to have been condoned by the district court. be that as it may, since this court is of the opinion that the delay of 44 days ought to have been condoned by the district court, this writ petitions are allowed. the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the second additional district court, bijapur, in miscellaneous appeal no. 17/2008 stands quashed. miscellaneous appeal no. 17/2008 revives before the second additional district court, bijapur. all other questions except the question of delay are kept open to be urged before the second additional district court, bijapur, in miscellaneous appeal no. 17/2008.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying To Issue Order Or Writ In The Nature Of Certiorari Quashing Order Dated 23.06.2008 Vide Annexure-D Passed In Misc.Application No.55/2005 By The 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bijapur And Which Is Confirmed In Ma No. 17/2008 By The Learned Ii Addl. District Judge, Bijapur And Consequently Condone The Deiay In Filing An Application By Setting Aside The Exparte Award Dated 13.09.2002 In Mvc No.985/1995.)

1. The Second Additional District Judge, Bijapur, has refused to condone the delay in filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2008.

2. The records reveal that MVC No.985/ 1995 was disposed of on 13.09.2002 by MACT-VI, Bijapur.

Petitioner herein filed application for setting aside the exparte award dated 13.09.2002 in Miscellaneous Application No.55/2005 under Order - IX Rule 13 CPC. The same came to be dismissed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, on 23.06.2008. The order passed in Miscellaneous Application No.55/2005 was assailed by the petitioner before the Second Additional District Judge, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2008 with the delay of 44 days. The First Additional District Court refused to condone the delay of 44 days by the impugned order.

3. Since the valuable rights of the parties are involved in the appeal, the proper course to be adopted by the District Court was to hear the appeal on merits and thereafter pass orders, which means, the delay ought to have been condoned by the District Court.

Be that as it may, since this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 44 days ought to have been condoned by the District Court, this writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Second Additional District Court, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2008 stands quashed. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2008 revives before the Second Additional District Court, Bijapur.

All other questions except the question of delay are kept open to be urged before the Second Additional District Court, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2008.

Same Court & Year Karnataka Gulbarga · 2014 Same Parties Mehtabsab vs Yusuf and Another Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Mohan M. Shantanagoudar