In this Regular Second Appeal, the court rejected the appellant's application for condonation of a 985-day delay. The court found the medical reasons insufficient due to lack of enclosed evidence and dismissed both the interim application and the main appeal.
The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
R.S.A. No.1144 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
V. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O VARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O HYADALA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 110
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
ALL RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HYADALA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
... RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.7.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.4.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.532/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., DEVANAHALLI.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 passed in R.A.No.135/2008 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
3
confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2008 passed in O.S. No.532/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli, dismissing the suit of plaintiff.
accompanying application in I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 985 at para Nos.3 and 4 are as follows;
“3. I submit that the judgment and
decree in RA No.135/08 came to be delivered on 26.07.2010. Since I was
4
suffering from hypertension in vertigo, I was under bed rest as advised by the Dr.D.Nagesh of Devanahalli from 16.12.2010 for a period of six months. There after I was under constant checkup and treatment with the said doctor from 04.06.2011 to 18.12.2011. The said doctor has issued the certificates advising best rest.
5
Devanahalli for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”
6
Consequently, the appeal also fails and hence,
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the medical cause shown by the appellant amounts to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 985 days in filing the appeal.
Whether the Regular Second Appeal succeeds in the absence of condonation of limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. LIPOK AO AND OTHERSReferred¶39
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS (2005)3 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Narayana Swamy
Marappa
Maregowda
Srikar @ Cekar
Puttaraju
Anjanappa
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
