Skip to content


Shrimaj Jagadguru Mummadi Shri Neelakantha Pattadarya Mahaswamygalu Vs. Shankar Shivacharyaswamy Gurunanjundaswamy Neelakanthamath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1871 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Kant236
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 26, Rule 3
AppellantShrimaj Jagadguru Mummadi Shri Neelakantha Pattadarya Mahaswamygalu
RespondentShankar Shivacharyaswamy Gurunanjundaswamy Neelakanthamath
Appellant AdvocateR.U. Goulay, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.S. Ujjannavar, Adv.
Excerpt:
- integrated child development service programme. integrated child development service programme (icds) : [d.v. shylendra kumar,j] scheme envisaged for providing proper social conditions and atmosphere for the informal development of the personality of the child expansion of anganawadi centres selection of anganawadi workers - guidelines procedure composition of selection committee modification of selection committee-government order statement of objections filed on behalf of the state government, government sought to bring about a variation to the composition of the selection committees-selection of large number of anganawadi centres by the committees constituted in terms of government order - notification to that effect challenge as to validity of government orders held,..........or suffered from any sickness or infirmity which prevented him from attending the court.3. the learned munsiff has further held that the application is not a serious one inasmuch as on two earlier occasions identical applications 1. as. 7 and 8 were dismissed for non-prosecution, as both the applicant and the counsel were absent. aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.4. miss nimmi swami, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urged more or less the same grounds which were urged before the lower court. i am not impressed. the learned munsiff has taken the correct view in rejecting the application. after all it is the plaintiff who has brought the suit and therefore he cannot plead that he has no time to attend the court in order to give his own.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the II Additional Munsiff, Hubli, on I.A. No. 9 in O.S. No. 75/1975.

2. The applicant in I.A. No. 9 was the present revision petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit. The application was made under Order 26, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for appointment of a commissioner to examine the plaintiff at his Mutt which he could not leave to personally attend the Court as he was every day pre-occupied with his duties to the deity as well as the devotees. The defendant who is also a Mathadhipathi objected to the same. After hearing the parties the application was dismissed as the applicant was not either exempted person or suffered from any sickness or infirmity which prevented him from attending the Court.

3. The learned Munsiff has further held that the application is not a serious one inasmuch as on two earlier occasions identical applications 1. As. 7 and 8 were dismissed for non-prosecution, as both the applicant and the counsel were absent. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Miss Nimmi Swami, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urged more or less the same grounds which were urged before the lower Court. I am not impressed. The learned Munsiff has taken the correct view in rejecting the application. After all it is the plaintiff who has brought the suit and therefore he cannot plead that he has no time to attend the Court in order to give his own evidence in the Court.

5. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. This order is passed after notice to respondent.

6. Petition dismissed.


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