Skip to content


National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Julekhabi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No. 749 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1983]54CompCas172(Kar); ILR1981KAR832
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 9, Rule 13
AppellantNational Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentJulekhabi and ors.
Excerpt:
- adverse possession: [k. ramanna, j] suit property fell to share of defendant in partition suit revenue records disclosing possession of suit property in favour of plaintiff - no document or deed produced to prove source of title - no evidence produced to show why name of plaintiff entered into revenue record or how she became owner held, mere entry in revenue record will not confer any title to plaintiff or he cannot be termed as owner of suit property, unless title to suit property by adverse possession, is proved. limitation act (36 of 1963)articles 64 & 65 :[k. ramanna,j] adverse possession - suit property fell to share of defendant in partition suit revenue records disclosing possession of suit property in favour of plaintiff - no document or deed produced to prove source of..........company is directed against the order dated february 7, 1981, passed by the vth additional city civil judge, bangalore city, dismissing an i.a. as well as the main petition to set aside the exparte decree under o. 9, r. 13 of the cpc on his file, m.v.c. 281 of 1976, which was admitted and judgment and award passed in the same by the claims tribunal, bangalore city, on june 22, 1979. thereafter, the insurance company instituted misc. no. 922 of 1980 before the city civil court, bangalore, to set aside the judgment and award, as the insurance company was ex parte in the proceeding. the learned city civil judge, in the course of his order, has held that the cause shown by insurance company to condone the delay is not sufficient and in that view he has dismissed the application after.....
Judgment:

Sabhahit, J.

1. This is appeal by the insurance company is directed against the order dated February 7, 1981, passed by the Vth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing an I.A. as well as the main petition to set aside the exparte decree under O. 9, r. 13 of the CPC on his file, M.V.C. 281 of 1976, which was admitted and judgment and award passed in the same by the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, on June 22, 1979. Thereafter, the insurance company instituted Misc. No. 922 of 1980 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, to set aside the judgment and award, as the insurance company was ex parte in the proceeding. The learned City Civil Judge, in the course of his order, has held that the cause shown by insurance company to condone the delay is not sufficient and in that view he has dismissed the application after rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It is against that order that the present appeal is instituted.

2. It may at once be pointed out that the insurance company is not a party to the proceeding. All that is contemplated u/s. 96(2) is that a notice of the proceedings should be issued to the insurance company before or after the commencement of the proceeding. The insurance company can become a party only by an order of the court as contemplated u/s. 110C(2A). It is not the case of the insurance company that the company was arrayed as a party in the proceeding. That being so, it is not entitled to institute any such proceeding as it was never a party to the proceeding, and there was no question of ex parte decree against the insurance company. Therefore, the very application for setting aside the award is misconceived. This aspect is, no doubt, not noticed by the learned City Civil Judge. It is nobody's case that notice was not issued to the insurance company. Hence, without more, the application instituted for setting aside the ex parte decree was liable to be dismissed and it is so dismissed.

3. Moreover, assuming for a while that it had such a right to make the application, the learned City Civil Judge has rightly pointed out that there is no sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay. He has given cogent reasons for it and we agree with him.

4. In the result, therefore, there is no arguable point in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine and we dismiss the same in limine.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //