Dismissed¶50

Sri. B M Narayanaswamy v. Sri. Gangulappa

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025RSA/1860/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; sufficient cause; bonafide reasons; chikungunya ailment; 544 days delay; Regular Second Appeal Karnataka; Section 100 CPC; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551; RSA No.1860 and 1861 of 2017; R.A.No.94 and 95 of 2008; O.S.No.57 and 109 of 2002; Senior Civil Judge JMFC Chintamani; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decision dated 10-09-2025; appeals dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay of nearly 2 years in filing the appeals are not bonafide in nature, and no supporting documents have been produced by the appellant to substantiate the plea that he was suffering from ailments. ¶43

Sri. B M Narayanaswamy Vs Sri. Gangulappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35675 RSA No. 1860 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2017 (INJ) C/W

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1861 OF 2017 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O KOMMU MUNISWAMY @ B.B. MUNISWAMY RESIDENT OF BODANAMARI VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125.

¶10

…COMMON APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. GANGULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE PEDDA MUNIYAPPA, RESIDENT OF BODANAMARI VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125.

¶15

…COMMON RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. KALYAN .R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

RSA NO.1860 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:35675 RSA No. 1860 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.57/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC CHINTAMANI.

¶22

RSA NO.1861 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.109/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

RSA No.1860 of 2017 is filed by the Defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 in R.A.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 in O.S.No.57 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), and J.M.F.C., Chintamani, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35675 RSA No. 1860 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

RSA No. 1861 of 2017 is filed by the defendant

¶30

assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 in RA No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Chintamani, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005, in O.S.No.109 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), and J.M.F.C., Chintamani decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶31

In these two appeals, as there is delay of 544 days in filing the appeals, IA No. 1 of 2017 is filed in RSA No.1860 of 2017 and IA No. 2 of 2017 is filed in RSA No.1861 of 2017 by the appellant seeking condonation of delay.

¶32

I heard Sri H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel

¶33

appearing for the appellant and Sri Kalyan R, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

Sri H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35675 RSA No. 1860 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying application and submitted that, the appeal was not preferred within the stipulated time, as the appellant was suffering from chikungunya ailments and therefore, sought for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals.

¶38

Per contra , Sri Kalyan.R, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the reasons assigned by the appellant herein seeking condonation of delay for nearly 2 years is not bonafide and the ground taken in the affidavit accompanying the application cannot be accepted as the same is not sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the. IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 filed in both the appeals.

¶39

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that there is a delay of nearly 2 years in filing the appeals. I have also carefully examined the reasons assigned by the appellant in the affidavit accompanying

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35675 RSA No. 1860 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the applications in IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 wherein it is stated that, during pendency of the appeals before the First Appellate Court itself, the appellant was suffering from chikungunya. It is also to be noted that, the

¶43

judgment and decree was passed by the First Appellate Court on 26.11.2015. Therefore, taking into account the reasons assigned by the appellant are not bonafide in nature and no supporting documents have been produced by the appellant to substantiate the same, as he was suffering from ailments and further, sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of nearly 2 years in filing the appeals. In that view of the matter, as the bonafide reasons have not been made by the appellant herein, in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v/s

¶44

Chhanda Koley and Others¹ . I am of the view that the

¶45

reasons assigned by the appellant cannot be considered as bonafide reasons are assigned to show sufficient cause

¶46