[N THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DIIARWAD DATED THIS THE 30 DAY SEPTEMBER. 201 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MORAN RUDDY BET \V E EN: M PA NO. 235QQQUiSi MISC.CVLS. 109835/2009IjQ7jl1 SMT. SHANTAWA W/O APPASAB CHOUGALA AGE MAJOR, 0CC: HOUSEF{OLD R/C) BEDAKIHAL TAL:CHIRODI 591 201 DIST. BELGALJM APPELLANT (BY SRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, AE)V.) AND: 1. SHRI. SHANKAR NAG\PA UMARA\i AGE 49 YRS. OC: AGRICULTURE R/O YADUR. TAL: CHIKODI sqi 201 DIST. BELGAUM. 2. SMTh GOURAWA. W 1 0 APPANNA CHOUCALA AGE MAJOR, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD R P KHEMALAPUR TAL: RAIBAG 591 317 01ST. BELGAUM. RESPONDENT’-; THIS APPEAL IS FILED NDER SECTION 01” INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 192S, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18/02 2008 PASSE) IN P cc SC N()11 ‘2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE BELGAUM ALLOWING TIlE PETITION PILED U/SEC 27h OP THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT AND EC MISC.CVL.No.109s35 2OO IS FILED UNDER SECTIoN 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY cSF 505 DAYS IN FILING THE AVOVE APPEAL. MISC.CVL.10T539/201 1 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAING TC) CONDONE THE DELA\ OF DAYS IN FILING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH MISC.CVLS. CoMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING. THIS DAY. THE COt.R DELIS ERED THE FOLLOWING JUDUMENI Recording the submissiot; of the learnt d counsel fur the appellant, appeal is dismissed as vithdrawn. Registry to refund the court fee. Misc Cv1s.10983/20()tI and I 07359/20 11 are accord inglv rejected. It is need less to state, if the appellant ere to file an cu1)I)CUI iii accordance with law before the appellate authority, lie can di) Si) by filing necessary application for ondon log the delay explaining the pendenc of the procceding before this Court, as one of the rcasons for the delay. sat 3 TJDGE km RMRJ MFA 23502/2009 4/11/2011 ORDER ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO This petition is listed for being spoken to at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel is correct in his submission that while rejecting Miscellaneous First Appeal by order dated 30th September, 201 1 inadvertently, it is recorded thus: ‘if the appellant were to file an appeal in accordance with law before the appellate authority’ though in fact it is to be read as to file a ‘Miscellaneous Application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with law, before the Probate Court’ In that view of the matter, the order dated 3Qth September, 2011 stands modified by deleting the words “appeal” and “ appellate authority” and incorporating the words “Miscellaneous application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure” and ‘Probate Court” and in all other respects, remains unaltered. Registry to carry out corrections and issue certified copy. Sd/ JUDGE kmv