AYESHA, W/O ABDUL WAHAB RAHMANSABNAVAR, AND ORS Vs. HALEEMABI, W/O JAMALUDDIN RAHMANSABNAVAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.25/2008 condoning the delay in presenting the plaint.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents filed O.S.No.95/1991 against the appellants. The Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dharwad, by its order, dated 5.3.2002 returned the plaint for being presented to the proper Court. The respondents challenged the said order by filing M.A.No.20/2002 before the Court of the First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad. The appeal was dismissed on 30.8.2003. The order, dated 5.3.2002 passed by the Trial Court and the order, dated 30.8.2003 passed by the Appellate Court were challenged by the respondents in C.R.P.No.3614/2003 before this Court. This Court, by its order, dated 27.10.2003 dismissed the said C.R.P. The respondents filed I.A.No.34 before the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dharwad to transfer O.S.No.95/1991 to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad. The said Court rejected I.A.No.34, by its order, dated 25.5.2005. Thereafter the respondents filed the plaint along with the I.A. for the condonation of delay in filing the plaint before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad. The case was registered as O.S.No.25/2008 and was assigned to the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad. The said Court allowed I.A.No.1 by condoning the delay in filing the plaint by imposing the cost. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri A.A.Kalebudde, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has erred by allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after holding that the said Section is not applicable for the delayed presentation of the plaint. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC.