The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed this second regular appeal against a judgment that refused to condone delay. The Court held that the delay of over a year prior to the pandemic was unexplained and attributable to negligence by an appellant represented by counsel, rendering the appeal unsustainable.
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.
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100584 OF 2022 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. S.A.SONDUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
ANDAPPA S/O NINGAPPA NAREGAL AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR M/S. STAR SECURITY AGENCY R/O. BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, SATTUR TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009
…RESPONDENT
(SRI. S.C.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2020 PASSED IN
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
R.A.NO.28/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2019, PASSED IN O.S. NO.425/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR MONEY SUIT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent from both the sides the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
reasonable grounds to condone the delay. Hence, the present second regular appeal is filed.
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
Court was passed in the month of March, 2019 and by that time, there was no COVID pandemic and COVID-2019 was affected in the month of March 2020 and during the said period, between March-2019 to 2020 the delay has not been properly explained and for the reasons mentioned in the application is also that, the order was communicated after more than six months and thereafter the same was intimated to the Head Office and even after communication of the order also not filed the appeal within time. The counsel also would submits that, the appellants herein have represented through their counsel and having the knowledge not filed the appeal, but only when the execution petition was filed and notice was ordered, in order to delay the execution proceedings, the appeal was filed after lapse of 441 days. The first appellate Court also after recording the evidence of the witnesses comes to the right conclusion that the delay has not been properly explained and dismissed the appeal.
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
the material on record, particularly the reasons assigned by the first appellate Court in paragraph No.13, the first appellate Court has taken note of the reasons for delay, wherein, an affidavit is sworn to, that the said order was communicated more than six months and thereafter the same was intimated to the Head Office and the Head Office did not give timely reply and apart from that, the first appellate Court also considered the evidence on record i.e. evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph No.14 and also in cross-examination answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 in coming to the conclusion that, first of all the appellant No.1 is not a party to the said proceedings and P.W.1 is working at appellant No.1 and not at the defendant No.1, whose name and address is shown in O.S.No.425/2015 and the suit was partly decreed and having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that no sufficient grounds are made out to condone the delay of 441 days in filing the appeal and
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
reasoned order has been passed while rejecting the application and consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others], wherein, taken note of the delay in filing the appeal in paragraph No.7.4 has made an observation that, the discretion to condone the
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that, in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing the conditions. It is observed that, each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court and also the Court has to take note of the statute and if any appeal is filed which amounts to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature, the same cannot be a ground to condone the delay.
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
house as he was suffering from hypertension and arthritis not found to be true and bonafide - Appellant would have filed appeal in time, if he had really suffered by Judgment and decree - In absence of sufficient cause, delay not liable to be condoned. In the case on hand also, the appellant has suffered the money decree and admittedly the appellant is a company and represented through a counsel and already I have pointed out that delay of one year from the Judgment and Decree in between March2019 to March-2020 has not been explained and sufficient cause has not been shown and pandemic of COVID-19 affected only after March-2020 and hence, the same cannot be a ground and apart from that the Head office has not properly replied to the intimation given by the appellants is also not a sufficient ground to condone the delay and the first appellate Court also after recording the evidence of P.W.1, first of all he is not a party to the lower Court proceedings and the first appellant is not a party to the lower Court proceedings and the same also taken note
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
of it and the party who represented before the trial Court has not been examined and assigned the reasons for not accepting the cause shown by the appellant and apart from that it is only a money suit decree and claim was made for recovery of the amount with interest and when the appellants are not diligent in prosecuting the matter and sufficient reasons are not given, I do not find any material to admit the second appeal and to frame any substantive question of law, since there was an inordinate delay of 441 days in filing the appeal and also it is found on record that, only after the receipt of notice of filing of the execution petition only, an attempt was made to approach the appellate Court to condone the delay and hence, no merit to admit the second appeal.
the following:
RSA No. 100584 of 2022
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SVH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an inordinate delay of 441 days in filing a second appeal, unexplained before the pandemic, warrants condonation of limitation.
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a valid ground for condoning the initial year-long delay in March 2019 to March 2020.
Whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause for the delay despite being represented by counsel and having the Head Office in Himachal Pradesh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and othersReferred¶41
AIR 2022 SC 332 [Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others] · Who else cites this
Smt. Parvathamma and others Vs. Smt. Jayamma and anotherReferred¶48
2018 (4) AKR 690 [Smt. Parvathamma and others Vs. Smt. Jayamma and another]
Lokappa Vs. Smt. Shekavva and anotherReferred¶48
AIR 2019 KARNATAKA 119, [Lokappa Vs. Smt. Shekavva and another] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Indo Farm Equipment Ltd.
The Managing Director Indo Farm Equipment Ltd
Andappa S/o Ningappa Naregal
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
