Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Surendra Maniyani

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024RSA/2032/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State authorities sought to file a regular second appeal against a decreed suit with a delay of 2374 days, citing administrative reasons. The court held this was not sufficient cause, following State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, dismissed the condonation application and consequently the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application IA.1 of 2021 for condonation of delay dismissed; Regular Second Appeal No.2032/2018 dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Surendra Maniyani — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30870 RSA NO.2032 OF 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 145.

¶9

THE TAHSILDAR UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶10

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SURENDRA MANIYANI S/O KUNNIRAM MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O PALUKOTE, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶18

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07^TH JANUARY, 2012 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.NIL/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS INFRUCTOUS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12^TH JUNE, 2007 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.605 OF 1991 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30870 RSA NO.2032 OF 2018

¶21

(JR.DN.), UDUPI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendantAuthorities assailing the order dated 07^th January, 2012 passed in Regular Appeal No.Nil/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal as having become infructuous and confirming the judgment and decree dated 12^th June, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.605 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Udupi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the respondent herein was decreed.

¶25

Heard Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for appellants.

¶26

Having heard Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for appellantAuthorities and on perusal of the appeal papers, the same would indicate that there is a delay of 2374 days in filing the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30870 RSA NO.2032 OF 2018

¶28

appeal. In this regard, appellants have filed application IA.1 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶29

On Perusal of the affidavit accompanying application IA.1 of 2021, particularly at paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the deponent-Tahsildar of Udupi Taluk has stated that, due to administrative reasons, they failed to file the appeal in time. However, I am of the considered opinion that the said reason cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 2374 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, following the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS reported in ( 2005)3 SCC 752 , the application filed by the appellants to condone the delay in filing the appeal is deserved to be dismissed as the appellants have not shown the sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, application IA.1 of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is

¶30

dismissed.

¶31

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶32

ARK

The State of Karnataka v. Surendra Maniyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Surendra Maniyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M.R Rangaswamy Vs Sri Shivakumar

Late Shivamma Vs Kalyanamma

Smt Vedavathi Vs Smt Bhagirathi

Sri Talavar Duragappa Vs Sri D Jayappa

Barikara Nagappa Vs Hosuramma

Sri Darnappa Poojary Vs Sri M P Jeevandhar Kumar