High Court of Karnataka Allows Restoration of Land Acquisition Reference in CRP Under Section 115 CPC. Trial Court's Dismissal of Restoration Application Set Aside for Failure to Exercise Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 240
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, legal representatives of the original claimant Kashinath Basayya Balulmath, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot in LAC No.33/2007. The trial court had dismissed an application for restoration of the land acquisition reference which had been dismissed for default. The petitioners sought to set aside that order and restore the reference. The High Court observed that the trial court had not properly considered the application and had failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. The court noted that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance and that the dismissal of the restoration application was not justified. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the trial court to restore LAC No.33/2007 to its original file and proceed with the matter. The court also directed the parties to appear before the trial court on a specified date.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Restoration of Dismissed Suit - Section 151 CPC - Inherent Powers - The trial court dismissed the application for restoration of LAC No.33/2007 which was dismissed for default. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall the dismissal order if sufficient cause was shown. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for restoration of LAC No.33/2007 which was dismissed for default, and whether the High Court can set aside such order under Section 115 CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot in LAC No.33/2007, and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to restore LAC No.33/2007 to its original file and proceed with the matter. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 16.05.2022.

Law Points

  • Restoration of dismissed reference
  • Section 151 CPC
  • inherent powers
  • sufficient cause
  • land acquisition reference
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (04) 9

CRP No. 100102 of 2019

2022-04-13

Suraj Govindaraj

Sri. Lingraj Maradi (for petitioners), Sri. Praveen K Uppar (HCGP for respondent)

Kashinath S/o Basayya Balulmath (since deceased by LRs) and others

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkot

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC challenging order on I.A. dated 02.07.2019 in LAC No.33/2007

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 02.07.2019 dismissing the application for restoration and to restore LAC No.33/2007

Filing Reason

The trial court dismissed the application for restoration of the land acquisition reference which had been dismissed for default

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed an order on I.A. dated 02.07.2019 dismissing the restoration application

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the restoration application without considering the merits Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 115 CPC with the order dismissing the restoration application

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall the dismissal order as sufficient cause was shown Respondent opposed the petition

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court has inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall an order dismissing a suit or reference for default if sufficient cause is shown. The dismissal of a restoration application without considering the merits is not justified and can be interfered with under Section 115 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The grievance of the petitioners is that the proceedings in LAC No.33/2007 were dismissed for default and the application for restoration was also dismissed. The trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall the dismissal order if sufficient cause was shown.

Procedural History

The original land acquisition reference LAC No.33/2007 was dismissed for default. The petitioners filed an application for restoration which was dismissed by the trial court on 02.07.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115, 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Restoration of Land Acquisition Reference in CRP Under Section 115 CPC. Trial Court's Dismissal of Restoration Application Set Aside for Failure to Exercise Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Juvenile Justice Case — Conviction for Murder Set Aside Due to Lack of Proper Inquiry into Age. Applicant's claim of juvenility at time of offence not properly considered by trial court, warranting remand for fres...