Hukumchand and Co. Forest Produce and Vs. the State of Karnataka Through Principal Secretary Finance Department and - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- limitation act (36 of 1963)article 58: [v. jagannathan, j] suit for declaring relinquishment deed as in valid limitation elder coparcener relinquished his share in favour of other brother of plaintiff clear from evidence barring one plaintiff, the other had attained majority on date of execution of relinquishment deed one of plaintiffs, who was a minor, also attained majority suit filed long after completion of three years period from date of attaining of majority of each one of plaintiffs by skillfully mentioning in pleadings that plaintiffs came to know about relinquishment deed only about two months prior to filing of suit, they cannot avoid limitation period held, question of relinquishment deed being labeled as void does not arise. partition suit: [v. jagannathan, j] relinquishment of share by brother in favour of other brother by plaintiff by seeking relief of partition and separate possession of their share in suit property are, in effect, calling in question deed of relinquishment which is registered document held, unless and until said deed of relinquishment is set aside, question of plaintiffs staking a claim for share in suit property will not..........advocate was directed to take notice for the respondents - state of karnataka and deputy commissioner of commercial taxes respectively as per the order dated 24,4.2009 and an interim order as sought for was granted, which was to operate till the next date of hearing.2. we notice from the order-sheet that the petition had come up for orders subsequently on 3.6.2009, 26.08.2009, 2.09.2009 and last by on 16.09.2009, on which date at the request of miss. joe anton beno, the learned counsel for the petitioner, matter was directed to be listed again after vacation.3. the matter has come up today and miss joe anton beno, learned counsel for the petitioner, yet again seeks for an adjournment, though on the premise that the learned sr. counsel who has to appear in the case today, has some personal inconvenience due to bereavement in the family and requests the matter to be taken up on 7.10.2009, assuring the court that all necessary compliance will be secured by then.4. however, submission of sri. venkataramanappa, learned govt. pleader appearing today for the respondents is that the file though contains a copy of the sales tax revision petition papers, which had been served at the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. In this Sales Tax Revision Petition Government Advocate was directed to take notice for the respondents - State of Karnataka and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes respectively as per the order dated 24,4.2009 and an interim order as sought for was granted, which was to operate till the next date of hearing.

2. We notice from the order-sheet that the petition had come up for orders subsequently on 3.6.2009, 26.08.2009, 2.09.2009 and last by on 16.09.2009, on which date at the request of Miss. Joe Anton Beno, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, matter was directed to be listed again after vacation.

3. The matter has come up today and Miss Joe Anton Beno, learned Counsel for the petitioner, yet again seeks for an adjournment, though on the premise that the learned Sr. Counsel who has to appear in the case today, has some personal inconvenience due to bereavement in the family and requests the matter to be taken up on 7.10.2009, assuring the Court that all necessary compliance will be secured by then.

4. However, submission of Sri. Venkataramanappa, learned Govt. Pleader appearing today for the respondents is that the file though contains a copy of the Sales Tax Revision Petition papers, which had been served at the office of Advocate General, in advance as per the requirement of the High Court Rules, thereafter, no further copies have been furnished and even in the copy received in advance, the annexures to the petition are not at all legible and no attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to serve on the respondents, either legible copies or another set of Revision Petition papers.

5. While we find from the record, that a copy of the interim order dated 24.4.2009 has been despatched from the Registry, even during the month of April 2009, it is rather surprising that neither the Office of the learned Advocate General has bothered to apprise the developments to their clients i.e., the State of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes nor the respondents who have received a copy of the interim order sent from the Court, cared to contact their counsel and instruct the Government Advocate or the Government Pleader.

6. While the only effort on the part of the counsel for the petitioner appears to be one of seeking endless adjournments and not even complying with the basic requirement of either furnishing copies of the papers to the respondents or their counsel or even to make amends for having furnished the illegible copies of Annexures to the petition, the interim order obtained on 24.4.2009 appears to be only to take advantage of it and not to go on with the case which clearly demonstrates an attitude of lack of bonafides, on the part of the respondents and also the Government Advocate/Govt. Pleader, the attitude is one of total inertness tantamounting to callousness and irresponsibility.

7. We can appreciate neither. It is high time some professionalism regulates the functioning of the lawyers, who are in a noble profession whether, be it as a lawyer appearing for a private party or even a lawyer appearing for the State, carrying the designation of a Government Advocate or a Government Pleader.

8. Though we have adjourned the matter to be listed on 7.10.2009, we do so, only on imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner, which amount the respondents definitely do not deserve, having regard to their lethargic and indolent conduct.

9. The costs of Rs. 1,000/- should be sent to the account of Chief Minister's Flood Relief fund, to be paid by or before Wednesday the 7th October 2009. It is also open to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to make amends for the present deficiencies. Learned Government Pleader is directed to at least now make efforts, to be equipped with proper instructions to make suitable submissions in the case.

10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Karnataka for necessary follow-up action and improvement in future.

List on 7.10.2009.