Sri v Madhuchandra Vs Smt Lalitha S Chetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri v Madhuchandra Vs Smt Lalitha S Chetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4 years 11 months 19 days in preferring first appeal R.A. No.86/2024 was properly explained so as to justify condonation sought through I.A. No.1. +1 more

Court's answer

Apart from the appellant No.1's hospitalisation in 2021 (Ex.P.1 discharge summary and Ex.P.2 outpatient file), no other reason was assigned for the delay; nothing was stated as to why another advocate was not engaged during or after the suit, showing the appellants were lethargic and not diligent. With an enormous delay of 4 years 11 months 19 days, each day's delay had to be explained and was not; the First Appellate Court therefore rightly dismissed I.A. No.1 and consequently dismissed the first appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the Apex Court's 2025 ruling in Shivamma that, whether the applicant is the State or a private party, there cannot be two yardsticks and a litigant must be diligent and cannot sleep over the matter for years, this Court adopted the same standard in judging the appellants' delay.

Key takeaways

This Court found no ground to admit the second appeal and frame substantive questions of law, and accordingly dismissed the second appeal.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S. 100 r/w Order XLII Rule I CPC) dismissed at admission stage. First appeal R.A. No.86/2024 against the decree dated 01.07.2019 in O.S. No.191/2013 was filed with a delay of 4 years 11 months 19 days; the only explanation offered was appellant No.1's hospitalisation from 22.09.2021 to 04.02.2021-period documents Ex.P.1 (discharge summary) and Ex.P.2 (outpatient file), with nothing said as to why substitute counsel was not engaged during or after the suit. Holding that each day's delay must be explained and relying on the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Shivamma that there cannot be two yardsticks for the State and private parties, the Court found the appellants lethargic and not diligent, upheld the First Appellate Court's dismissal of I.A. No.1 and of the appeal, declined to frame substantial questions of law, and dismissed the second appeal; pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of as they did not survive.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1002 OF 2025 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. V. MADHUCHANDRA S/O LATE R. VARAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

SMT. GEETHAMALA V., D/O LATE R. VARAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST WARD CHIKKBALLAPUR CITY-562101.

…APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. LALITHA S. CHETTY W/O LATE K.R.SRINIVASAIAH CHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.229, 215 2^ND CROSS, BEERAPPA STREET CHIKKABALLAPURA CITY-562101.

…RESPONDENT

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE I OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN R.A.NO.86/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE I.A. AND DISMISSING

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE APPEAL AND FILES AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.191/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellants.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal

on the ground that there was a delay of 4 years 11 months in preferring the appeal. No doubt the appellants

relies upon the document Ex.P.1-discharge summary which clearly discloses that he was admitted to hospital on 22.09.2021 and he was discharged on 04.10.2021. Ex.P.2 is the outpatient file issued by the said hospital in favour of the appellant No.1 and except producing Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, not produced any other documents.

Having perused the records, it discloses that

suit was filed in the year 2013 and suit was decreed in 2019. The present appeal is filed in 2024 and except the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025

HC-KAR

reason that he was admitted to hospital in the year 2021,

no other reasons are assigned. But, only counsel would contend that the counsel who conducted the case in O.S.No.181/2013 passed away and hence not cross examined the witness and also not lead any evidence and

what prevented him to meet the Advocate during the pendency of the suit as well as even after the disposal also, nothing is stated and the same clearly discloses that a person who is lethargic and not diligent and there is an enormous delay of 4 years 11 months 19 days in preferring the appeal. When such unexplained delay is found, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that delay is not explained properly and each day delay must be explained and the same is not done and hence dismissed the I.A.No.1. Consequently, dismissed the first appeal. When there was an inordinate delay in view of the judgment of the Apex Court recently held in 2025 in case of Shivamma , categorically held that whether the State or the private party, there cannot be a

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025

HC-KAR

two yardstick and litigant must be diligent and he cannot

sleep over for years. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. Hence, the

second appeal is dismissed .

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any

do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed

of.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54