Modi Abdul Subhan and Others vs The Second Addl. Dist. Judge, Bangalore

M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.—The short question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief, he has prayed for. The reliefs prayed for are two. He has prayed for the quashing of Exhibit-B, an order by which he has been denied the occupancy rights under the Village Offices Abolition Act in respect of certain service inam lands. The other relief is for quashing of Exhibit D, the order made by the District Judge at Bangalore bearing the date January 29, 1977, in Mis. Case No. 202/1976 which came to be dismissed on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation as Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not attracted to proceedings under the Village Offices Abolition Act. That finding was recorded in the absence of the counsel for petitioner-appellant as well as the appellant himself. But later an attempt to have that order set aside also failed.

It is now contended, the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not attracted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, . That is a matter which may be urged before the District Judge (now City Civil Court).

This petition must succeed on the short question that the District Judge erred in disposing of I.A. No. 1 for condonation of delay in the absence of the counsel for party as well as the applicant. In such cases, the only jurisdiction the court has is to dispose it of for non-prosecution or non-appearance of parties but not on merits in their absence.

Therefore, the order at Exhibit D is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Principal City Civil Judge for disposal in accordance with law. No costs.