J1 :ii 1)7 ipu “i rdqr’ J o11ut H pi’o Wui H PUJM I )UOTSSIWWOJ 3ILJ. ooo/ 6101 ON nIVd JS1M WIflO NI VNHSRINVIVH IO JJAVUkLtW HL O ONflkI NON IOI UNV 8OO6 8 UiLVU Ie!NItWi54 ‘TYsTh vNvAvelvNv \VHStIN N N ‘IHNOH ll1J (INV NV1fIN VI(1N ]AHS U 4JkL8111 U%i ici NOH 4HJ 6OO flHL3 ))IU iO AVU 91 IHI SIHi UIVU VUIVH9flO IV H )N’4H I1HJUIJ \N1VNJM LO flI IOJ HOIlI 3111 1 2 This Misc. CVL. 1F3272/09 is filed under Section 151 of (‘.RC. praying to recall the order dated 8/9/2008 and for non filing of th affidavit of l3alakrishn a. Phis T\4is ( vi. 153272/09 touting on for further orders this day I).VSHYLEVDRA K(MAR J inad tht following ORDER This appeal has come up for further orders on MiseCvil. 1 53272/2009 lbr recalling order dated 8.9 2008 and rcgarding non filing of the aflida it of Balakrishna The requirement of filing of the affida ii f Ba1akrshna. erstxvliilc Ad’o ale appearing for the pell in i n rrns of r icr hi irt he 13 11 2009. which reads a’ tolio\\’-: A I I )O) OI?L.ER 0V MISC (CL a() I >al Qs I o ) MiJ II 1 (1 11 flT( 1 -’iiaa iL. hi , -J a 3 Considering the cause shown by the appellant, we had orally directed the learned counsel who has filed tliLs application, to Jile the affidavit of Sri Balakrishna to show that on &92OO8 lie could HOt appear b Ibre this court on account oj the train being late on that day. Inspite of such direction, the appellant has not jlied the affidavit of Sri Baiakrishna. One Syed Peer Pasha, Assistant Executive Engineer of P.WD. who is present in court today. submits that iitspile of best efforts of the Housing Board, Sri Balakrishna is not willing to file the affidavit. There1re, we cannot accept the cause shown by the appellant herein. IVOthing is produced to show that Sri Baiakrishna has infact travelled from Bcngalore w Gulbarga and at what time the train reached Gulbarga is not fbrthcorninq. Udder the circumstances, we cannot arant arts relief unless arid until the a[Jidavit of Balakrishna is flied c.nd rcquisite documents produced toshou., that he did travel from. 1 (U ri3 e 3 U I Udder the cimumstances, it is open to the Lions trio Board to file Lv ct incivit o[ the coo nsel, Sri Balaicrishma. 4 On th subsequnt dates also, then being no proper represenianon and on the appearance of Sri Sved Peer Pasha, the Assist ant Executive Engineci of rht appellant i)odrd aT 11 I1harLa. tn lIds I)eeIl adjni irned to I ndav a per our earlier or(Icr dated 9. l22OO9. which reads as under: t)VSKJ &. KNKJ: 9/1 2,/2009 Whik Sri R S. Sidhapurkar learn d ourtsel trho had J&d pouer earliEr and whosE tame is still figuring in thE cause list as appearing for thE appellant submits that the appellant has collected hack all ruse papers and hic is riot apperirincj Oliti more rir rite case (lJld he is bc/crc the Court Fi: aUc’nd ne’i matter There is Tin i(hcr rEr)rcsenlrjlul’cs [or the appeitwo t’-qflVit(ifriL Hmsiiai Board ‘hnztcrc O’TICS ‘f fbi iCs ri ii sjv nor nduncuift s c ruw’ i ;w (iHsr h’5 I eocalcs Iw ‘h j P I1( i C r r a I ‘ii 5 the curlier diiectiorL r*ffiling qf the nfflcku’lt qf Sri l3alukrisluta the crsru’hile counsel u’ho tins appeanng for them at BangalorE and who is the root causefor the present situation in the appeal hat’inp been dismissedjor non prosecution List this appeal on 16 12/2009’ Sri Shivakumar Malipatil leaned (‘otmsel has appeared for the appellant and Sri Syed Peer Pasha. the Assistant E’iceutlve Engineer of the appellant Board at Gulbarga is also present before the Court Learned Counsel for the appellant has explained that the reason for no representation for the appellant on 8.9.2008 on winch date the appeal wa dismissed for nnpr cc ho asaot eilly be the’ibenc’ r the late i eachitig ‘4 the then ‘.‘oun%t 1 Sri I3aldkrishna. iii ft it atfi ‘i it S3 P rP Lsetrrt trjnsfr i (4 .ippe-al to the £ ,ulbarna h n’ It ot 1 C Ia I- rnr K ilk.u ‘ii. t’-wli’tt C’ “ri I “. 1% flainililIg ii- -nair’ I ti j’ -i( * P ii • ‘11 .i. • ‘ •r ttj • . it’ i . 1 2•’ II’ 6 been dismissed for nom prosecution on 8.9.2008. But Counsel Wr R S Patil. had been entruSte(l with the appeal papers subsequently for the purpose of preparing an apphcation for recalling the order along with an affidavit. The deponent Sri Syed Peer Pasha, submits in the affidavit filed today that he was under the bonafIde impression that the appeal has been dismissed for non appearance of the Counsel Sri Balakrishna and that was not the fact realised later and that it is a mistake that had crept in his earlier affidavit. By filin a fresh affidavit, he assures the Court that hencelbrth he will sign papers only after knowing the contents of the same and not otherwise. Sri Shivakumar MalipatiL learned Counsel states that.n the circumstances of the case, the p•resent affidavit placed before the Court today may be accepted uc r c’Isni: n ci pr ci recalicci. ubrnission as well as tue artictavir accepted. C u I I recall the. ea.rlie.r o.rcle.r dated 892OO8. •dismi..ssing the a d lUUjLJddb c144 SuJ 1t0J paur&a ‘IiW 0 T1N st wmju IT4 11% Aq pasanbai ‘ 01 OC 10 11 O aoj iajew isrj p ) ii )J U ua )q ,3ujABT4 %1O 3 ajq 04 pasosai aq 04 paiapso i jeaddv uoinaasosd uou soj jeaddt L