The court dismissed an application for condonation of delay of 1274 days in filing a regular second appeal. It held that a communication gap constitutes insufficient cause and the appeal was rejected as untimely.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal rejected as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 RSA No.1690/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1690 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
MUNIYAPPA
S/O GUDAPALLI MUNISWAMY (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs)
(DIED ON 29/3/2008 & DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DT.20.1.09)
2 RSA No.1690/2008
ALL ARE R/AT: HONNAKALASAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 101 BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: JAGADISH D HIREMATH, ADV)
AND:
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
RSA No.1690/2008
3
2(e) RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE DALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(f) KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE DALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2(g) KOMALA
D/O LATE DALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O VANAKANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: MAMATHA G KULKARNI, ADV FOR R1, R2(a-g) ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.10.2004 PASSED IN R.A.NO.132/98 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.1998 PASSED IN OS.NO.52/91 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN.), & JMFC., ANEKAL.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING-IA, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Heard on IA.I/2008 filed for condonation of
delay. There is a delay of 1274 days in filing this appeal.
RSA No.1690/2008
4
3. Perusal of the affidavit does not
reveal satisfactory and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Merely because of communication gap, it does not mean that he can ignore the litigation which was pending and he is not diligent on his part in knowing the result about the appeal which was disposed of by the First Appellate Court.
As there is insufficient cause to condone the delay, I do not find any justifiable grounds to allow the application. Hence, the
5 RSA No.1690/2008
application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is not maintainable and hence, it is rejected.
IA.II.2008 for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, it is disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 1274 days in filing a regular second appeal.
Whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
Muniyamma W/O Late Muniyappa and others
P Rajanna and others
A.S. Pachhapore
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
