Disposed¶45

Smt Siddalingamma v. Smt Doddamma

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025CRP/324/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act application; Section 115 CPC revision; Family Court Chikkamagaluru; R.A.No.2/2022 regular appeal; cost imposed on appellants as condition precedent; hardship compensation to plaintiff; immovable property adjudication; Ramlal vs Rewa Coalfield AIR 1962 SC 361 cited by First Appellate Court; expedite appeal hearing; Karnataka HC oral order 06.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of; condonation-of-delay order maintained but modified by directing respondents/defendants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff, payment being a condition precedent to their further participation as appellants in R.A.No.02/2022; First Appellate Court directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal. ¶45

Smt Siddalingamma Vs Smt Doddamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the order condoning the delay of 24 months 21 days in preferring the appeal in R.A.No.2/2022 (allowed on I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) is sustainable in this revision petition. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of: while maintaining the order of condonation of delay, it is modified by directing the respondents/defendants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Payment of the cost is a condition precedent to further participation of the respondents, who are the appellants in R.A.No.02/2022.

¶51

Key takeaways

Taking note that the regular appeal is of 2022, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal.ratio¶50
Because the rights of the plaintiff stood put at rest long back and the respondents/defendants wanted a chance to re-agitate the matter, the hardship caused to the plaintiff required compensation in terms of money; hence the cost direction.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision under S.115 CPC by plaintiff (Smt Siddalingamma) against order dated 07.07.2022 on I.A.No.1 in R.A.No.2/2022 (Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru) allowing condensation of a delay of 24 months 21 days sought by respondent Nos.5-7 (defendant Nos.4-6) under S.5 Limitation Act: High Court of Karnataka (V Srishananda, J., 06.11.2025) disposes of the CRP, maintains the condonation order but modifies it by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents/defendants payable to the plaintiff, makes such payment a condition precedent to their further participation as appellants in R.A.No.02/2022, and directs the First Appellate Court to expedite the hearing of the 2022 regular appeal; hardship of the plaintiff whose rights stood put at rest long back is compensated in money. Reference to Ramlal & others vs. Rewa Coalfield, AIR 1962 SC 361 arises from the First Appellate Court's reasoning as narrated by this Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45022 CRP No. 324 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2022 (IO-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SIDDALINGAMMA

¶8

W/O LATE B SIDDAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O ALLAMPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT DODDAMMA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI ERAPPA SHETTY S/O LATE DODDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O ALLAMPURA VILLAGE KAIMARA POST

¶16

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 577101

¶17

SRI PREM KUMAR S/O LATE DODDASHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O ALLAMPURA VILLAGE KAIMARA POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 577101

¶18

KRISHNA SHETTY S/O DODDA SHETTY

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45022 CRP No. 324 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶22

HALAPPA S/O LT JAVARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

SMT NAGAMMA W/O RANGAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶24

SRI ERAPPA SHETTY S/O LT CHENNAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶25

SMT HEMAVATHI W/O ERAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶26

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O ALLAMPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 101

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI C.SADASHIVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2022 PASSED ON IA No.1 IN RA No.2/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA No.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45022 CRP No. 324 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Heard Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Sadashiva Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶35

Plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed on I.A.No.1, filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 who are defendant Nos.4 to 6, for condonation of delay of 24 months 21 days in preferring the appeal in R.A.No.2/2022, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru.

¶36

Though there are no proper reasons that have been assigned by the respondents for condonation of delay, learned trial Judge took into consideration that rights of immovable property needs to be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the respondents, condoned the delay of 24 months and 21 days by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfield, reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 and other authorities on the subject.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45022 CRP No. 324 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The validity of the same is called in question in this

¶41

revision petition.

¶42

After hearing Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Sadashiva Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be disposed of by directing the respondents to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not take into consideration that the rights of the plaintiff was put at rest long back and when the respondents/defendants want a chance to re-agitate the matter, the hardship that has been caused to the plaintiff needs to be compensated in terms of money.

¶43

6. Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of.

¶46

(ii) While maintaining the order of condonation of delay, the same is modified by directing the respondents/defendants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:45022 CRP No. 324 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(iii) Taking note of the fact that regular appeal is of the 2022, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal.

¶51

(iv) Payment of cost is condition precedent to further participation of the respondents who are the appellants in R.A.No.02/2022.

¶52

(v) Ordered accordingly.

¶53

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Smt Siddalingamma v. Smt Doddamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Siddalingamma v. Smt Doddamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Committee Vs the Karnataka State of Board of Auqaf

A C Anandaraju Vs H M Manjunath

Sri Raja Datta Vs Sri N Manjunath

Masjid-E-Azam (Sunni) Vs M.B. Sharadamma

Sri Appaji Vs Smt Thulasi

Smt.Dhanushree B Vs Sri.Harisha N