AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioners filed a suit for partition. By the order dated 29.10.2010, it was noticed that the plaintiff was absent. That he has engaged a new counsel who did not appear. That there are three plaintiffs and none of them turned out. There are no grounds for adjournment at all. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, an application was filed u/s 151 of CPC seeking restoration of the suit. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Shri Prakash Andanimath, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.
On hearing learned counsels, I'' am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The Trial Court considered the plea of the petitioners - plaintiffs and in extenso called out the manner in which the suit was being conducted by the plaintiffs. That the suit was of the year 2003. Substantial opportunities were given, to take steps against the defendants. They did not do so. The suit was dismissed against defendant Nos. 16 and 17 for not taking steps. The matter was thereafter adjourned. Time was sought by the counsel. It was granted. It was posted for the plaintiffs'' evidence as a last chance. The plaintiffs changed their counsel. Counsel did not appear. Plaintiffs also did not appear. Therefore the Trial Court was of the view that the only intention of the plaintiffs is to drag on the case. Norte of them appear to be serious in prosecuting the suit. The order sheet itself would disclose the manner in which the suit was being conducted. The suit is almost ten years old and no worthwhile progress has been made. For these reasons, the application was rejected.
On hearing counsel, I do not find any error that calls for interference. The contention of the petitioners is that in case the application is allowed, he would make himself available and prosecute the suit diligently. However, that is not sufficient in order to set aside the detailed order passed by the Trial Court. Substantial reasons have been assigned by the lower Court. It is apparent that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting their rights, in view of the fact that the suit itself is pending for the last ten years without any progress.
Even otherwise, the proceedings of this Court also would throw light on the manner in which the plaintiffs have been conducting the case. Substantial time has been granted by this Court to do the needful with respect to the respondents. A week''s time was granted to comply with the formalities for issuing notice to the respondents. By the order dated 10.04.2013 a week''s time was granted. On 05.06.2013 also a week''s time was finally granted to do the needful. It was submitted on the next date that the needful has been done. However, the matter was re-listed, the petitioners'' counsel was absent. Needful was not done, even as on date. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed for admission. Necessary steps have not been taken in respect of deceased respondent No. 2. The matter has been listed before the Court for payment of process fee etc., the issuance of notice to respondent No. 26 for the 3rd time.
Under these circumstances, the conduct of the plaintiffs throughout the suit as well as in this petition appears to be consistent. Virtually there is no interest at all by the plaintiffs to prosecute the matter. When the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting their rights, no indulgence could be shown. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.