IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.129/2002

Between:

Shri Mugutsab Mannesab Tahsildar, Major, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk.

Appellant

SERVICE AND A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A CONTRACT OF A

(By Sri Ravi G.Sabahit for Appellant).

<u>AND:</u>

1. Smt. Maktumbi w/o. Manmesab Tahsildar Major, Occ:Agriculture and Household R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

2. Smt. Jamilabi w/o. Gudusab Bogur Major, Occ:Agriculture and Household R/o. M.K.Hubli, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

3. Smt.Jaitumbi w/o. Musarun Jamadar Major, Occ:Agriculture and Household, R/o. Nandgad, Khanapur Taluk, Belgaum District.

4. Smt. Hanifabi w/o. Abdulaziz Basagaonkar, Major, Occ:Agriculture & Household R/o. Kupawad, Miraj Taluk, Sangli District.

(Respondents 1 to 4 are represented by their power of attorney holder Shri Imamhussain Gudusab Bogur)... Respondents

5. Shri Nabisab Mannesab Tahsildar Major, Occ:Agriculture & Service R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

6. Shri Gousumodin Mannesab Tahsildar, Major, Occ: Agriculture & Service, R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

7. Shri Mallikarjun Yallappa Gujanatti Major, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

8. Basavaraj Yallappa Gujanatti, Major, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Nesargi, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District.

.. RESPONDENTS

NEW TO ALL AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND

(By Sri B.S.Hadimani, for R1, 3 and 4 and Sri Lokesh Malavalli for R5 & R6. Appeal dismissed against R2).

This RFA is filed under Sec.96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 3-8-1999 passed in O.S.No.40/96 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Bailhongal, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.

This Appeal on for Orders On I.A.I/2002 this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER ON I.A.I/2002

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsil for the respondents-1, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 on I.A.I/2002.

2. I.A.I is to condone the delay of 823 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit in suppor of the application that the appellant could not contact his advocate as he was suffering from Athritis of left knee joint and that he was advised by the senior Medical Officer, Nesargi, Belgaum District not to travel and that he was under his treatment from 4-6-1999 and that the said disease was brought under control only in the first week of January 2002 and therfore there is delay in filing the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was suffering from Athritis of left knee joint

3

and that he was taking the treatment and therefore there is delay in filing the appeal.

4. As against this, the learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 submitted that the appellant has not produced anything to show that he was taking treatment from 1999 till 2002 and therefore there is no valid reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. They also submitted that the appellant has appeared in the FDP proceedings on 17-10-2000 and has participated in the said proceedings.

5. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Though it is stated in the affidavit in support of the application that the appellant was suffering from Athritis of left knee joint and he was taking treatment from 4-6-99 till first week of January 2002 he has not produced any medical records to show that he was taking treatment during the said period. In view of this, it is very difficult to accept the explanation offered by the appellant. There is no valid reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal and hence the application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I.A.I is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed.

5

NT/-.