AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The first respondent had filed writ petition No. 34958/95 in the High Court of Karnataka, challenging his dismissal from service. The learned single Judge who heard that petition disposed it of on 23-3-1998. The appellant-bank was not represented before the learned single Judge as the Advocates for the Bank Sri Sundraswamy and Ramdas did not appear as by that time they had not received the vakalatnama. The Bank then applied to the learned Judge to recall that order submitting that the Bank had sent the vakalatnama in time, but it was not received by the learned Advocate as it was lost in transit. The learned Judge rejected that application. An appeal was therefore filed by the Bank against the said judgment but the Division Bench without considering this aspect dismissed the appeal.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench ought to have remanded the case or considered all the contentions raised by the Bank. As it has not done so the order passed by it is wrong. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions we are of the opinion that the Division Bench ought to have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the learned single Judge for deciding the same afresh after hearing both the sides. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and remit the matter back to learned single Judge for disposing of the same afresh after hearing both the parties. The appellant-Bank shall pay cost of this appeal which is quantified at ` 2,500/-. The appeal is allowed accordingly.