Dismissed¶38

Ramesh v. S Bettegowda

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025RSA/1351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; 1120 days; sufficient cause; affidavit unsupported by documentary evidence; Section 100 CPC; Order 42 Rule 2 CPC; Regular Second Appeal; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Hassan; mandatory injunction; permanent injunction; O.S.No.209/2009; R.A.No.109/2014; I.A.No.1/2020. Result: delay not condoned, RSA dismissed at the threshold, merits untouched. Parties: Ramesh and Meenakshi (appellants) v. S. Bettegowda (respondent). Bench: H.P. Sandesh, J. Decided 25.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No documentary evidence was produced before the Court to substantiate the affidavit averment that appellant No.1's wife was suffering from paralysis. ¶33

Ramesh Vs S Bettegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42269 RSA No. 1351 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMESH,

¶11

S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶12

MEENAKSHI, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶13

BOTH ARE R/O. M.HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

S. BETTEGOWDA, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

M. HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

¶20

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHIDANANDA BUILDING, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, TUMAKURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560073.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶23

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42269 RSA No. 1351 of 2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.109/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.06.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.209/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2020 for condonation of delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal. The suit was filed for the relief of mandatory injunction and consequential relief of permanent injunction and the same was decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶30

In support of the application, appellant No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that his wife was suffering from illness with partial paralysis due to which he was providing Ayurvedic treatment through nativaidhya and he was very much keen to

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42269 RSA No. 1351 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

provide the treatment rather than concentrating in preferring an appeal and nobody was there to take care of his wife and hence the delay was caused. In support of the averments made in the affidavit, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court that his wife was suffering from paralysis.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the statement of objections contending that the delay of 1120 days is not explained properly. The learned counsel contend that each day’s delay has to be explained and sufficient cause must be shown and no such sufficient cause is shown and hence the delay cannot be condoned.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no dispute with regard to the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal. Having perused the material available on record, there is a concurrent finding. The Trial Court granted the relief and the same is confirmed in the appeal. On perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is sworn to that his wife was suffering from paralysis. But in

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42269 RSA No. 1351 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

order to substantiate the same, no document is produced before the Court. It appears that in an ingenious method affidavit is sworn to that treatment was provided in Ayurveda. Having considered the contents of the affidavit, no grounds are made out to condone the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal and hence I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶40

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Ramesh v. S Bettegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. S Bettegowda

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

Ms. Maria Alice De Souza Vs Nil

Sri. a. Subbarayappa Vs Smt. S. Sujatha @ S Sujathamma

Sri. Nagaiah @ Nagaraju Vs Sri. K E Basavarajaiah

Sri Chikkanarayanappa Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Sri. Krishnappa K. R. Vs Sri. Thopaiah

Sri v Nagaraj Vs Munivenkatamma