Second appeal challenging a decree confirming dismissal of a suit over property; appellants sought condonation of a 1422-day delay. The court held the affidavit reasons insufficient, citing Supreme Court precedent on condonation of inordinate delay, dismissed the application and consequently the 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:30576 RSA No. 2120 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2120 OF 2021 (SP)
BETWEEN:
LATE SHIVAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
S/O LATE B M RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE B M RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
BEGUR HOBLI, BEGUR POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560068.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VINAY S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
W/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT MANKUNDA VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI
NC: 2024:KHC:30576 RSA No. 2120 of 2021
CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BEGUR POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560068.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.13 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.314 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) RAMANAGARA.
NC: 2024:KHC:30576 RSA No. 2120 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1422 days in filing the appeal.
AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (3) SCC 752, I am of the view that, the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application cannot be considered as a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1422 days. This aspect of the matter with regard to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MRINMOY MAITY Vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND ORS., reported in (2024) 4 S.C.R. 506, and therefore, I do not find any merit in I.A.1/2021.
NC: 2024:KHC:30576 RSA No. 2120 of 2021
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, pending I.A. Nos.2/21 and 3/21 are disposed of as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SAC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1422 days in filing the second appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Nagaland v. Lepok Ao and OthersRelied on¶3
2005 (3) SCC 752, · Who else cites this
Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Ors.Relied on¶3
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 506, · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumith
Sridhar
Kalyanamma
Venkatamma
Malini
Gangamma
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
