Dismissed¶65

Sri B Siddharth v. Sri M N Udayashankar

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025RFA/529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (DB: Anu Sivaraman & Rajesh Rai K, JJ.; per Rajesh Rai K, J.), RFA No. 529 of 2019, decided 19.09.2025 — appeal under Sec. 96 CPC against ex parte decree for specific performance dismissed for want of condonation of 491-day delay; sufficient/bona fide cause absent, appellant found indolent with full knowledge of decree, moving only after execution proceedings. Keywords: condonation of delay, sufficient cause, inordinate delay, indolent litigant, ex parte decree, specific performance, Sec. 96 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Except for stating that he moved to Vellore where his father was living and was thereby unable to properly represent before the Court, the appellant offered no other proper explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of 491 days. ¶54

Sri B Siddharth Vs Sri M N Udayashankar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the inordinate delay of 491 days in filing Regular First Appeal No. 529 of 2019 ought to be condoned under I.A.1/2019. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The defendant had marked appearance through counsel before the Trial Court but, despite sufficient opportunity, chose not to file a written statement or contest the suit, and thereafter remained silent for nearly 1½ years until filing the appeal.

¶54

Key takeaways

The address in the cause title of the appeal was identical to the address shown in the impugned judgment; the appellant, knowing fully about the passing of the impugned judgment, approached the Court only after the matter reached the Executing Court and was accordingly found to be an indolent person who filed the appeal belatedly.ratio¶58
In view of the unsatisfactory reasons assigned, the Court is not expected to give indulgence to such an indolent person; equity could not be balanced in favour of the applicant/appellant, and the reasons assigned for condonation of delay were held unacceptable, with the result that the application failed.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA (under Sec. 96 CPC) against ex parte decree for specific performance — condonation of 491 days' delay refused; appeal dismissed. In O.S.No.4558/2015 (decree dated 04.08.2017, VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) the defendant had marked appearance through counsel but neither filed a written statement nor contested despite sufficient opportunity. After the ex parte decree he kept quiet for nearly 1½ years and filed RFA No. 529 of 2019 on 08.03.2019 with I.A.1/2019 for condonation, claiming he learnt of the decree only when an execution petition was filed and offering as sole explanation his move to Vellore where his father resided. Held: the address in the cause title of the appeal was identical to that in the impugned judgment, showing full knowledge of the decree; the appellant was an indolent person who approached only after the matter reached the Executing Court; no bona fide explanation existed and equity could not be balanced in his favour. I.A.No.1/2019 dismissed; consequently the appeal and all pending I.As. dismissed (Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K, JJ.; per Rajesh Rai K, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2019 (SP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI B SIDDHARTH S/O S BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, TEMPORARY RESIDENT AT ATULYA RESIDENTIAL FLATS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 3^RD FLOOR, SY.NO.99, 4^TH CROSS, R.K TOWN, YARANDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 105 PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.17, THYAGRAJAPURAM, VELLORE, TAMILNADU-632 001

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. SAMRUDH SURAJ HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDEV HEGDE M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI M.N UDAYASHANKAR

S/O M NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.98, 1^ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-560 023

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.4558/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶31

The appellant/defendant preferred this appeal

¶32

against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2017 passed by the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court" ) in O.S.No.4558/2015 whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff and directed the appellant/defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the

¶35

defendant/appellant for the relief of specific performance of contract and for a direction to the defendant to execute

¶36

a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property as per the Agreement of Sale dated

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

20.11.2014 which was executed by the defendant for sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.10,50,000/-. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.49,50,000/- within three months from the date of said order.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred this appeal. However, there is delay of 491 days in filing this appeal. Hence, to condone the same, appellant filed I.A.1/2019.

¶41

Since there is an inordinate delay in filing this appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.1/2019.

¶42

The application is accompanied with the affidavit of the appellant. It is stated that he is the

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

absolute owner of the schedule property and that since he moved to Vellore, where his father was living, he was not able to properly represent before the Court. As such, the Trial Court proceeded exparte and only when execution petition was filed, he came to know about passing of the decree. The delay is not intentional and is for a bonafide reason.

¶46

It is submitted that the appellant has a good

¶47

case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. Thus, the appellant prays to allow the application by condoning the delay.

¶48

Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff

¶49

opposed the application and submitted that passing of the impugned judgment was well within the knowledge of the appellant/defendant and in order to avoid execution of the Sale Deed, the defendant has now come up with this

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

appeal belatedly. As such, he prays to dismiss the application as also the appeal.

¶53

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶54

It could be gathered from record that the appellant has kept quiet for a period of 491 days i.e., for nearly 1½ year and filed the instant appeal on 08.03.2019 along with an application for condonation of delay. In the affidavit, except stating that since he moved to Vellore, where his father was living, he was unable to properly represent before the Court, there is no other proper explanation offered by the appellant/defendant to condone the inordinate delay. It is seen from the record that the defendant marked his appearance through his counsel before the Trial Court, but despite granting sufficient opportunity, defendant has chosen not to file written statement and contest the suit.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

On careful perusal of the facts and

¶58

circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the reasons assigned in the affidavit for the simple reason that the appellant, after appearing before the Trial Court, kept quiet till the disposal of the suit and thereafter, for a period of nearly 1½ year without any bonafide reasons. Further, the address shown in the impugned judgment i.e., Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru and the address mentioned in the cause title of the present appeal are one and the same. Now after passing of the decree, that too after 1½ year and only after the matter reached the Executing Court, the appellant has approached this Court. In such circumstances, it could be easily gathered that the appellant is an indolent person and knowing fully about the passing of the impugned judgment, filed the instant appeal belatedly.

¶59

In view of unsatisfactory reasons assigned by the appellant, the Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent person. Thus, equity could not be

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:38372-DB RFA No. 529 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

balanced in favour of the applicant/appellant to condone the inordinate delay. Accordingly, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is not acceptable and the application therefore fails. Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

I.A.No.1/2019 filed seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed .

¶66

All pending I.As. stand dismissed.

¶67

SD/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶68

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶69

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22