Skip to content


Karibasappa Vs. Md. Khaja HussaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 98 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Kant77; AIR1973Mys77; (1972)2MysLJ273
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151; Mysore High Court Rules, 1959 - Rules 23 and 24
AppellantKaribasappa
RespondentMd. Khaja HussaIn and ors.
Advocates:Murlidhar Rao, Adv.
Disposition Application rejected
Excerpt:
.....show cause notice regarding short levy bills - notice issued indicating that it has approval of board of trustees - it is not by delegating power but after passing resolution held, show cause notice not invalid for want of competence. -- section 56: notice of payment of charges short levied or erroneously refunded - two years period within which notice is to be issued held, port trust cannot claim benefit of exclusion of time during which earlier writ petitions were pending before court. moreso, when court in earlier writ petition has passed an interim order stating that it would be open to port trust to issue such notices in accordance with law and in compliance with section 56. .....by the court. the present application is filed for restoration of the appeal on 22-2-1972. the delay in making the application is more than 6 years. no satisfactory explanation is given for not filing the application within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the appeal. mr. murlidhar rao submits that the rules of the high court do not prescribe any period of limitation for making such an application and hence there is no delay in making the application. we do not agree with the above submission. when no specific period of limitation is prescribed therefor, the case has to be dealt with in the light of the doctrine of laches which applies to judicial proceedings. the period of six years cannot be considered as reasonable time within which an application for restoration can be.....
Judgment:

Venkataramiah, J.

1. R. A. 98/60 was dismissed on 26-7-1965 on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the printing charges within the time granted by the Court. The present application is filed for restoration of the appeal on 22-2-1972. The delay in making the application is more than 6 years. No satisfactory explanation is given for not filing the application within a reasonable time after the dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Murlidhar Rao submits that the rules of the High Court do not prescribe any period of limitation for making such an application and hence there is no delay in making the application. We do not agree with the above submission. When no specific period of limitation is prescribed therefor, the case has to be dealt with in the light of the doctrine of laches which applies to judicial proceedings. The period of six years cannot be considered as reasonable time within which an application for restoration can be filed. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming to condone the delay. Hence we reject the application without notice to the respondent1


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