The court examined an application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal. Finding the affidavit bald and insufficient to explain a delay of nearly two years, the court rejected the application. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed without hearing.
Rejection of application for condonation of delay and dismissal of the second appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1714 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE LINGAPPA POOJARY AND ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT “DARKSHA HOUSE” NEAR BANGABETTU SCHOOL, THODAR VILLAGE, POST BADAGAMIJAR, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. -574225.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE KAMALA,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ”DEVI PRASAD DATTEPADI HOUSE” BADAGAYADAPADAVU POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-574144.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE BHOJA ANCHAN, ALL ARE R/AT SHANTHINJA BETTU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, POST-MITHADBAILU, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-574226.
RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE LAXMAN, BOTH ARE R/AT SHANTHINJA BETTU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, POST MITHADBAILU, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-574226.
R/AT SHANTHINJA BETTU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.
RESPONDENTS NO.14 AND 15 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE VASANTHA.
RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT HOTEL GEETHA, NAGARIKA BANK, THOFA, KALYANA ROAD, BHIVANDI POST, THANE DISTRICT-421308.
RESPONDENTS NO.19 TO 23 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE SHEENA.
RESPONDENTS NO.18 TO 23 ARE RESIDING AT BEETU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, POST MITHABAIL, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.-57226.
RESPONDENT NO.25 IS THE WIFE AND 26, 27 AND 28 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE DOOJA ANCHAN.
ALL ARE R/AT SHANINJA BETTU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, MITHABILU POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-574226.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.30 TO 32 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE VISHWANATH ANCHAN.
RESPONDENT NO.26 TO 29 ARE RESIDING AT SHANINJABETTU HOUSE, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, POST MITHABILU, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.-574226.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.62/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for condonation of delay of 599 days in filing the appeal. In support of the application (I.A.No.1/2021) filed for condonation of delay, an affidavit is filed by appellant No.1 stating that due to financial constraints, he could not approach the advocate and hence there is a delay. Except this reason, no other reason is assigned. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not having any knowledge about the order passed by the First Appellate Court. A bald affidavit is filed without any explanation for the delay. R.A. was disposed of in the year 2018 and this appeal is filed in the year 2021. The delay period of 599 days is excluding Covid period and while condoning the delay, each day delay has to be explained and the same has not been explained and no sufficient reasons are assigned to condone the delay. This appeal is filed against the concurrent judgment and no grounds are made out to condone the delay. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is rejected. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal deserves to be allowed given the lack of sufficient grounds.
Whether the present appeal having no grounds and facing delay should be admitted.
Whether the impugned judgment dismissing the second appeal should be set aside.
Sri Vittala
Smt. Kushala
Smt. Devaki
Sri Kishori
Smt. Sumithra
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
