Allowed¶55

Shantha v. C R Suresh

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025RSA/2032/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 40 days I.A.No.1 First Appellate Court technical ground substantive rights substantial justice medical certificate ill-health chest wall injury knee ligament Section 100 CPC regular second appeal remand for merits six-month timeline Karnataka High Court 2025 H.P. Sandesh RSA 2032/2023 NC: 2025:KHC:24921 O.S.No.503/2013 F.R. R.A.No.12/2022 Arsikere Hassan

What did the court decide?

Second appeal allowed; the First Appellate Court's order on I.A.No.1 set aside and I.A.No.1 (condonation of 40 days' delay) allowed; the first appeal remitted to the First Appellate Court for decision on merits; parties directed to appear before it on 04.08.2025 without awaiting notice, with disposal within six months from 04.08.2025; Registry directed to communicate the order forthwith. ¶55

Shantha Vs C R Suresh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing I.A.No.1 seeking condonation of a 40-day delay in filing the regular first appeal (thereby dismissing the appeal itself), or whether such a short delay supported by stated reasons and a medical certificate warranted a non-technical, substantive-justice approach.

¶45

Court's answer

While considering a regular statutory appeal, the First Appellate Court should not be too technical; in dealing with the condonation application it ought to have taken note of the substantive rights of the parties and secured substantial justice rather than dismiss the application on a technical ground.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

For a delay of only 40 days, where reasons (appellant No.1's ill-health) were stated and medical records stood produced, the First Appellate Court ought not to have insisted on further medical records or on the applicant personally examining herself; the medical certificate was available on record though she did not enter the witness box.

¶49

Key takeaways

On the above reasoning, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court was liable to be set aside and the first appeal was required to be considered on merits.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.), RSA No. 2032 of 2023 (DEC/INJ), decided 09.07.2025 — Condonation of delay; Section 100 CPC second appeal against dismissal of I.A.No.1 excusing a 40-day delay in filing F.R. R.A.No.12/2022 (first appeal from decree dated 08.04.2022 in O.S.No.503/2013). Held: a First Appellate Court should not take a too technical view while considering a statutory regular appeal; for a short 40-day delay supported by stated reasons of ill-health and a medical certificate already on record, it must weigh the substantive rights of the parties and secure substantial justice instead of dismissing condonation on technical grounds, insisting on further medical records, or requiring the applicant's personal examination. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and I.A.No.1 allowed; matter remitted to the First Appellate Court for decision on merits, parties to appear on 04.08.2025 and disposal directed within six months therefrom.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHANTHA, W/O THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶11

BHUMIKA, D/O THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶12

AKASH, S/O THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRINIVASA NAGAR, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

C.R. SURESH, S/O C.V.RAMASHETTY, AGED MAJOR.

¶19

C.R. JANAKAMMA, W/O C.V. RAMASHETTY, AGED MAJOR.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA MUTT ROAD, SHYANUBHOG STREET, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶23

TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶24

SUB-REGISTRAR, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶26

SHANTHAMMA, W/O JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, CHIKINGALA VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577201.

¶27

YALLAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SRINIVASA NAGAR, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-577201.

¶28

BHAGYAMMA, S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED MAJOR, R/AT YAGACHI VILLAGE, GANADALU POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577201.

¶29

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN-577201.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2025)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED IN F.R. R.A.NO.12/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.503/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

¶39

counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶40

This appeal is filed against the order of dismissal

¶41

of I.A.No.1, wherein there was a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal and consequently dismissing the appeal. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that though it is stated that appellant No.1 was suffering from left chest wall injury and left knee medical collateral ligament injury, the said ailment is not mentioned in the I.A., which

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

has been filed for condonation of delay also not examined herself before the Court and not shown any sufficient reasons.

¶45

The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the delay is only 40 days and reasons are also given and the First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the same in a lenient way and the same is not considered and the order is too technical.

¶46

The counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that appellant No.1 though stated that she was suffering from ill-health, not entered into the witness box to show the sufficient cause and hence the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the same.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and having taken note of the reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court should not be too technical while considering the regular appeal i.e., a statutory appeal for consideration of the impugned order of the Trial Court and the delay is only 40 days and even reasons are stated that appellant No.1 was suffering from ill

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

health and with regard to 40 days delay, ought not to have expected the medical records, but produced and the same is not considered. Having considered the judgment of the First Appellate Court, an observation is made that medical certificate is available on record, but not examined herself before the Court. While considering the delay of 40 days, the First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the substantive rights of the parties and not on technicalities and ought to have met the substantial justice and not dismissing the application on technical ground. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be considered on merits.

¶51

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court on I.A.No.1 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1 filed before the First Appellate Court is allowed.

¶56

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider the appeal on merits.

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24921 RSA No. 2032 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 04.08.2025, without expecting any notice from the First Appellate Court.

¶60

(v) The suit was filed in the year 2013 and the appeal is of the year 2022 and almost the parties have approached the Court one decade ago and hence it is appropriate to direct the First Appellate Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to both the parties and consider the same on merits within a time bound period of six months from 04.08.2025.

¶61

(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the First Appellate Court, forthwith.

¶62

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶63

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Shantha v. C R Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantha v. C R Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivanna Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Nagarathnamma Vs Mahesha

Smt Thopamma v v Vs Smt v J Saraswathi

The Asst. Executive Engineer Vs B Srikantachari

K N Shankarappa Vs Maheshwarappa

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri H. Rameshappa