Dismissed

Rajappa v. Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024RSA/2063/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a regular second appeal, finding the 1113-day delay inordinate and unsupported by sufficient cause, having regard to a prior judgment in an identical matter. Consequently, the second appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.1/2021) rejected; Regular Second Appeal rejected.

Rajappa Vs Executive Engineer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2063 OF 2021 (RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAJAPPA

¶8

S/O LT RANGAPPA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶10

LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAJAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GANDHI NAGARA BOVI COLONY KEREKODI RANGAPURA ROAD TIPTUR TOWN

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

NATIVE OF CHIKKLAKUR ROAD J C PURA, KANAKATE HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 572201.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WORK AND EXECUTIVE DIVISION

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶21

BESCOM TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572111.

¶22

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER O AND M CIRCLE, BESCOM OLD KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMKUR - 572111.

¶23

MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE BESCOCM, K R CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO. 10007/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the Order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the V Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Tiptur in R.A.No.10007/2016, rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation and as such, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.16/2012 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tiptur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

¶34

It is the case of the plaintiffs that, on 23.05.2010, at about 5.15 a.m., deceased - Harisha, died on account of electrocution in the Anjaneya Swamy procession and accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.16/2012 seeking damages from the defendants. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and denied the death of Harisha on account of electrocution.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶37

In order to establish their case, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as P.W.1 and produced seven documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. Defendants examined one witness as D.W.1 and produced thirteen documents and same were marked as Exs.D1 to D13. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2014, decreed the suit and awarded compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation and as such, directed the defendants to pay the compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred R.A.No.10007/2016 before the First Appellate Court. As there was delay in filing the appeal, the appellants therein filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the said application was heard on merits and the application was dismissed as per Order dated 07.12.2016, consequently the appeal came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶40

In the present appeal also, there is delay of 1113 days in filing the appeal and as such, the appellants have filed I.A.No.1/2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶41

Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Deshpande Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶42

Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that though there is delay in filing the appeal, the nature of the suit has to be considered, as son of the appellants died on account of electrocution and as such, he invited the attention of the Court to the reason stated in the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.1/2021 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶43

Per contra, Sri. Deshpande Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that, in identical case in respect of death of another person, this Court in RSA No.2003/2021, by Judgment dated 09.07.2024 dismissed the application on the ground of limitation and therefore, he submitted that the averments made in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the present appeal as well as reasons stated in

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶45

RSA No.2003/2021 are identical and as such, the present application requires to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶46

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to death of Harisha due to electrocution on 23.05.2010. In this regard, the Trial Court has granted compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.10007/2016 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the ground of delay and laches.

¶47

In the present appeal also there is delay of 1113 days in filing the appeal. In this regard, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the appellants/plaintiffs in I.A.1/2021, particularly referring to paragraph Nos.3 and 4 in the affidavit enclosed to the application. Having taken note of the actual aspects on record as the reasons set out in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit cannot be accepted as 'sufficient cause' for condoning the inordinate delay of 1113 days in filing the

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37159 RSA No. 2063 of 2021

¶49

present appeal and also looking into the Judgment passed by this Court in RSA No.2003/2021, it can be inferred that the appellants were negligent in filing the appeal before this Court and that apart, the reasons set out in paragraph Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the affidavit appended to I.A.1/2021 cannot be considered as sufficient cause for accepting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶50

In that view of the matter, as sufficient cause has not been shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.1/2021 is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands rejected.

¶51

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶52

sac

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Rajappa v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajappa v. Executive Engineer

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 S G Markandaya Vs Smt S N Gayathri

Smt Pankaja M Vs the District Commissioner

B v Srinivas Vs Sri Ujinappa

Sri Here Ammanavara Basadi Vs Sri I Narendra Ballal

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs Smt.Jayamma

Chandramma Vs Smt. Mangamma