Dismissed¶57

Mallikarjunappa v. Shivamurthy

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025RSA/1486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal No. 1486 of 2024 (PAR); Karnataka High Court; Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 27.11.2025; second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed at admission; unexplained 12-year delay in filing first appeal R.A.No.112/2017 against FDP No.9/1999 order dated 19.12.2005; no sufficient cause; each day's delay not explained; no substantial question of law framed; reliance on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC Online SC 1969; Davanagere; delay condonation refused.

What did the court decide?

Since the 12-year delay in filing the first appeal was not explained and no sufficient cause was shown, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. ¶48

Mallikarjunappa Vs Shivamurthy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49351 RSA No. 1486 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MALLIKARJUNAPPA, S/O LATE MARUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O JAGALURU - 577528 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SHIVAMURTHY, S/O LATE JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶16

RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶17

BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, BHOVI COLONY, J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALURU – 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶18

JAYAMMA, W/O LATE VENAKTESH, D/O SANNATHIMMANNA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49351 RSA No. 1486 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALURU – 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶22

SMT. KRISHNAVENI, W/O N.T. PAKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, BHOVI COLONY, J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALURU – 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶23

SMT. HANUMAKKA, W/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.

¶24

KUM. SUMA, D/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶25

LOKESHA, S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, BHOVI COLONY, J.C.R. EXTENSION, JAGALURU – 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶27

KATAPPA, S/O LATE GUDDADA MARIYAPPA, S/O LATE THIPPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶28

THIPPAIAH, S/O LATE GUDDADA MARIYAPPA, S/O LATE THIPPAMMA. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:49351 RSA No. 1486 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE GUDDADA MARIYAPPA, S/O LATE THIPPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/O GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALUK-577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.112/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2005 PASSED IN FDP NO.9/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), DAVANAGERE.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

¶40

counsel for the appellant.

¶41

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 12 years in filing the appeal. The FDP proceedings was disposed of on 19.12.2005 and the appeal is filed challenging the said order in 2017 and no explanation is given regarding delay is concerned. The

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:49351 RSA No. 1486 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

same is considered by the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and comes to the conclusion that no sufficient reason is assigned and dismissed the appeal.

¶46

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶47

There was an inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court as against the order of FDP passed on 19.12.2005. The first appeal was filed in 2017, almost after 12 years and no sufficient cause is shown and each day’s delay has not been explained by the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of

¶48

SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969, has held that the Court cannot decide the matter on merits unless the limitation is explained and when sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay, the question of entertaining the delayed appeal does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the same and when the delay is not explained before the First Appellate Court for a period of 12 years, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal and

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:49351 RSA No. 1486 of 2024

¶50

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of

¶53

CPC.

¶54