K. RUDRAPPA versus SHIVAPPA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 953 · Decided: 30-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. RUDRAPPA 
V. 
SHIVAPPA 
AUGUST 30, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908-0rder 22 Rule 3 read with Section 
151-Applicant ignorant of pendency of appeal for grant of land instituted 
A 
B 
by his deceased father-Became aware of the same on receiving 
communication from the Advocate engaged by his father-Immediately C 
application for bringing legal representatives on record filed-Dismissal 
on the ground that no prayer made for setting aside abatement of appeal 
and condonation of delay-Thereafter dismissal of separate applications 
filed by District Court-Order upheld by High Court-Correctness of-
Held : Such technical objections should not come in doing full and D 
complete justice between the parties-Courts below ought to have allowed 
the applications-Hence, Order of District Judge as upheld by High Court 
set aside-Legal representatives directed to be brought on record and 
Appellate Court to dispose of appeal on merits-Karnataka Village Offices 
Abolition Act, 1961. 
Appellant's father filed an appeal for grant of land and during 
the pendency of the same he expired. However, appellant was ignorant 
E 
of the pendency of the appeal. He came to know about the same few 
months later when he received communication from the Advocate 
engaged by his father. Immediately appellant contacted the Advocate F 
and informed him of his father's death and filed application for 
bringing legal representatives of deceased on record. He stated in the 
affidavit to the said application as to how he came to know about the 
pendency of the appeal. However, District Court rejected the application 
as it was time barred and prayer for setting aside abatement of appeal G 
or for condonation of delay was not made. Appellant again filed 
applications for setting aside abatement, condonation of delay and 
bringing heirs of deceased on record but District Judge rejected the 
same. Aggrieved appellant filed Revision Petition. High Court upheld 
the order of District Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
953 
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant contended that the District Judge took too technical 
view in rejecting the applications for bringing legal representatives of 
deceased on record, setting aside the abatement and refusing to 
condone delay; that the District Court ought to have granted the 
prayer and disposed of the appeal on merits; that even separate 
B applications filed were rejected; and that High Court ought to have 
interfered with the order of District Court. 
Respondent contended that in the first application prayer was not 
made for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay as such 
the District Court was right in rejecting the said application; and that 
C since the first application was dismissed, separate applications were 
not tenable and the order passed by District Court and High Court was 
correct. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : It is appellant's case before the District Court that he was 
not aware of the pendency of appeal filed by his father against the 
order passed by the Tehsildar. Appellant came to know about the 
pendency of appeal when he received a communication from the 
Advocate engaged by his father. Immediately he contacted the Advocate 
E and informed him regarding his father's death and then filed lln 
application under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. In such 
circumstances, District Court ought not to have taken a hyper-
technical view in rejecting the application inter alia observing that 
prayer for setting aside abatement of appeal or condonation of delay 
F was not made, in doing full and complete justice between the parties. 
In any case, when separate applications were made, they ought to have 
been allowed. By not doing so, even the High Court has also not acted 
according to law. Applications ought to have been allowed by the 
Courts below. Hence, Order passed by District Judge and upheld by 
G High Court are set aside. Appellant and his brothers are directed to 
be brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased and 
the Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal on its own 
merits. (957-F-H; 958-A-C; 959-A) 
Ganeshprasad Badrinarayan Lahoti (D) by Lrs. v. Sanjeevprasad 
H Jamnaprasad Chaurasiya & Anr., (2004) 7 sec 482, relied on. 
{ 
K. RUDRAPPA v. SHIVAPPA [THAKKER, J.] 
955 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5568 of A 
2004. 
From the Judgment a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.