The court dismissed an application for condonation of nearly nine years of delay in filing a regular second appeal, holding that the reasons provided were insufficient. Consequently, the underlying appeal was also dismissed.
Application for condonation of delay of 3793 days dismissed; Regular Second Appeal 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:39526 RSA No. 1790 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1790 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, OPP: VINOD TILES FACTORY, VINOBHA NAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(GULLADKI UNDI), MAHARAJAPETE,
NC: 2024:KHC:39526 RSA No. 1790 of 2023
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.6/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.285/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against judgment dated 11.12.2015 in R.A.No.6/2013 on the file of Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channagiri, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.No.285/2008 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
the affidavit accompanying the application, the same cannot be accepted as there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of nearly nine years. I do not find any merit in the application and following the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO
AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 , I am of the view that as the sufficient cause has not been shown in the affidavit to condone the delay of 3793 days, application is dismissed, consequently appeal is also dismissed.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SMJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for condonation of delay of 3793 days in filing a regular second appeal is maintainable in absence of sufficient cause.
Whether the delay in filing the second appeal can be condoned considering the reasons stated in the affidavit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao and OthersReferred¶35
STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS [(2005) 3 SCC 752] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. PREMA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA
SMT. H.L.GOWRAMMA
H.L. MANJUNATHA
H.L. MALLIKARJUNA
BENAKAMMA @ SUSHEELAMMA
SMT. NEELAMMA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
