Dismissed¶48

Smt Jayalaxmamma v. Smt Akku

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025RSA/1350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; sufficient cause; inordinate delay; medical records; additional affidavit; power of attorney holder; Asthma treatment; outpatient versus inpatient; Section 100 CPC; regular second appeal; I.A.No.1/2024; dismissal of appeal; R.A.No.12/2017; O.S.No.61/2012; Hosanagar/Hosanagara; Shivamogga district; Karnataka High Court; Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 09.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The medical records produced with the additional affidavit are not satisfactory: appellant No.3 took only periodical outpatient treatment (dates including 22.09.2022, 22.03.2023, 03.10.2023, 08.11.2023, 26.01.2024) and was not an inpatient, indicating the documents were prepared and placed before the Court only when the Court demanded proof for 2022-2024. ¶44

Smt Jayalaxmamma Vs Smt Akku — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing Regular Second Appeal No. 1350 of 2024 (via I.A.No.1/2024).

¶47

Court's answer

¶44

Ratio / Principle

There is an inordinate delay from 2022 to 2024, and the Court is not convinced with the reasons set out in the additional affidavit and the medical records.

¶47

Key takeaways

What prevented appellant No.3 from filing the appeal from 2022 to 2024, when he was able to attend hospital periodically for Asthma treatment without being admitted as an inpatient, is not explained; therefore no sufficient cause is shown and no ground to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause is made out.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - Regular Second Appeal No. 1350 of 2024 (DEC/INJ) filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2022 in R.A.No.12/2017 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagar), which dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2017 in O.S.No.61/2012 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara). Oral judgment dated 09.12.2025 by Justice H.P. Sandesh. The appeal turned solely on I.A.No.1/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing. Counsel produced medical records of appellant No.3 - the power-of-attorney holder - with an additional affidavit claiming continuous Asthma treatment from 22.09.2022 to 17.12.2024 and advice of complete bed rest. The Court found the records showed only periodical outpatient visits with no inpatient admission, that the documents were prepared and placed before the Court only when proof for 2022-2024 was demanded, and that the inordinate delay remained unexplained. Holding that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay, the Court dismissed I.A.No.1/2024 and, consequently, dismissed the appeal.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1350 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JAYALAXMAMMA WIFE OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SRIDHARA RAO SON OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶12

SRI. VIJAYENDRA RAO SON OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

SMT. SRIMATHI DAUGHTER OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶16

SMT. SAVITHRI ALIAS SUMA DAUGHTER OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶17

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-576219 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶18

SMT. VIJAYA RATNA DAUGHTER OF A M KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶19

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶22

SRI. RAMESH SON OF A.M. KRISHNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. VIJAYENDRA RAO.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHARADA B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SMT. AKKU W/O LATE MUTTHA POOJARI SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HER LRS REPRESENTED NOS.1 TO 3.

¶27

MAHABALA POOJARI SON OF MUTTHA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶28

SRI. SHEKARA SON OF MUTTHA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SRI RATNAKARA

¶33

SON OF MUTTHA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT KODUR VILLAGE HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGARA.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

This Court heard the matter on 02.12.2025 and when this Court was not convinced with regard to delay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants sought time to place on record the medical records of appellant No.3, who is the power of attorney holder of Apex Court Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 for having taken treatment between 2022 to 2024.

¶40

Today, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has produced the medical records of appellant No.3 along with

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

additional affidavit, wherein in the additional affidavit, it is stated that he was under continuous treatment for Asthma and he was undergoing treatment between 22.09.2022 to 17.12.2024 and he is aged about 74 years and his Doctor advised him to take complete bed rest and he was not being involved in any of his work related activities.

¶44

On perusal of the additional affidavit and also the medical records, it discloses that he has taken treatment on 22.09.2022, but documents for having taken continuous treatment are prepared and produced before the Court and previous date of treatment is 22.09.2022 and next date of treatment is 22.03.2023 and subsequent dates of treatment are 03.10.2023, 08.11.2023, 26.01.2024 and 08.06.2022 and these documents are produced for having taken periodical treatment, but he was not an inpatient. Hence, it clearly discloses that when this Court asked for the documents between 2022 to 2024, these documents are prepared and placed before the Court and when he is able to go to the hospital periodically, he has not taken any steps to file an appeal before the Court. Hence, the medical records filed along

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51841 RSA No. 1350 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

with the additional affidavit are not satisfactory and there is an inordinate delay from 2022 to 2024 and this Court is not convinced with the reasons set out in the additional affidavit and also the medical records and there are no documents for taking the treatment in the hospital as an inpatient and what prevented him from filing an appeal from 2022 to 2024 when he was not admitted to hospital and taken treatment for Asthma is not explained and no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Hence, the averments made in the additional affidavit and the medical records which are produced before the Court are not satisfactory and not made out any ground to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause.

¶48

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Jayalaxmamma v. Smt Akku

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayalaxmamma v. Smt Akku

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Kaleem Vs Sri. Sannamudde Gowda

Nethravathi Vs Kotrabasappa

Sri. Ayatharappa Vs Sri. N. M. Obanna

Smt. M. Hemavathi Vs Smt. Chikkamma

Channe Gowda Vs Gowramma

Sri Shanthappa Vs Sri Puttegowda