The High Court at Bengaluru dismissed the revision under Section 100 CPC, holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for a 1114-day delay. Condonation was denied due to lack of explanation for the period from 2017 to 2021 despite age and health grounds.
I.A.No.1/2021 for condonation of delay and the main appeal were 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 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.S.A.NO.828/2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWHARJAN W/O. BASHA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O. ZANDA KATTA KHAJI MOHALLA, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI. … APPELLANT
[BY SRI GAONKAR DINESH NEELKANT, ADVOCATE]
AND:
SMT. THAHERA BEGUM W/O. SABJAN SAB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. HIMALAYA SOUND SYSTEM 4TH CROSS, HUDCO COLONY SHIVAMOGGA. ... RESPONDENT
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.87/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.503/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATHI.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission along with
I.A.No.1/2021 for condonation of delay.
I.A.No.1/2021 and there is a delay of 1114 days in filing the
appeal and in support of the application, the appellant has also filed an affidavit. On perusal of the same, it is stated that the appellant is aged about 71 years and her husband is aged about 80 years and both are suffering from age related ill-health and appellant came to know that judgment and decree of the Appellate Court was passed on 10.01.2017 and thereafter, she suffered a fall and taken treatment for giddiness and also suffered fracture and nothing is whispered in the affidavit as to when she came to know about the judgment of the Appellate Court and except stating in Para No.3 of the affidavit that because of Covid Pandemic in 2020-2021, she could not prefer the appeal and children are also staying away from Bhadravathi and no one is there for immediate assistance, nothing is explained with regard to the delay from 2017 to 2021. Except this reason, it is not stated in the affidavit as to whether she was having the knowledge of disposal of the appeal or not. The
3
affidavit filed by the appellant is bald and nowhere it is explained that it was not within the knowledge of the appellant that the appeal was disposed of in the year 2017, but only reasons are stated in Para No.3 that because of Covid Pandemic, she could not contact and meet the advocate at Bengaluru and get instructions.
4
to condone the delay of 1114 days in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.Nos.2/2021 and 3/2021 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 1114 days in filing the appeal under Section 100 of CPC can be condoned.
Whether sufficient grounds exist to dispense with the provisions of law regarding condonation of delay.
Smt. Gowharsjan W/o. Basha
Smt. Thahera Begum W/o. Sabjan
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
