In a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal against an order dismissing a condonation of delay application. The court held the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to contest the final decree petition within time.
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 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.615 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2024
PASSED ON IA NO.I IN R.A.NO.05/2024 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU., DISMISSING THE IA NO.I FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.09.2022 PASSED IN FDP NO.45/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:20424 RSA No. 615 of 2024
evidence on record, comes to the conclusion that the final decree petition was filed and notice was issued and this appellant made an appearance, but did not file any objections to the final decree petition. Apart from that, even at the time of carrying out the survey of the suit schedule property, she was very much present and document No.12 indicates her signature. But her only contention is that her signature was taken on the notice and mahazar at her residence. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that FDP report was obtained by the appellant on 16.07.2022 itself and if she had no knowledge about the submission of the report by the Court Commissioner in the FDP, she would not have applied for the copies of the report. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1, it is stated that she has no Knowledge about the proceedings conducted by the Court Commissioner until 08.01.2024. Having taken note of the submission as well as the document and not contested the same and also the signature found in the mahazar document No.12 as well as obtaining the Commissioner report, it is clear that she had the knowledge and not filed the appeal within time.
The appellant was having the knowledge about the earlier preliminary decree and filing of final decree petition and ADLR
NC: 2024:KHC:20424 RSA No. 615 of 2024
also surveyed the land and FDP is of the year 2019. When such being the material on record, I do not find any ground to admit
the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of 484 days in filing the regular second appeal.
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act condones the delay in filing the appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
Ammanamma
H.G. Lakshmamma
Mallamma
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
