Dismissed¶33

Sri H v. Krishna Naik v Sri T Pushparaj

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025RSA/277/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), RSA No. 277 of 2025, decided 27.11.2025 by Justice H.P.Sandesh. Appellant H V Krishna Naik vs respondent T Pushparaj. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against first appellate judgment in R.A.134/2022, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru (arising from O.S.42/2016, Tarikere/Chikkamagaluru; respondent of Bhadravathi, Shivamogga). Key theme: condonation of delay of 630 days (filed 19.02.2025); each day's delay must be explained; illiteracy and undocumented health grounds rejected where party litigated throughout below; concurrent findings; application rejected, appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Where there is an inordinate delay in filing an appeal, each day's delay has to be explained; the affidavit accompanying the condonation application contains no explanation for each day of the 630 days' delay.

Sri H v Krishna Naik Vs Sri T Pushparaj — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 630 days in filing the regular second appeal (application I.A.No.1/2025).

¶22

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The grounds assigned (illiteracy, unawareness of legal procedure, inability to obtain legal advice, and asserted health issues) are not acceptable: the appellant had participated in O.S.No.42/2016 and R.A.No.134/2022 and suffered orders before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, so want of legal knowledge cannot be accepted; further, no document is placed with regard to the health issues.

¶28

Key takeaways

Perusal of the material on record discloses a concurrent finding of the courts below.ratio¶28
No sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay, and therefore there is no ground to condone the delay of 630 days in filing the appeal.ratio¶28
I.A.No.1/2025 (condonation of delay) stands rejected.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Regular Second Appeal under Sec.100 of CPC against judgment and decree in R.A.No.134/2022 (Prl. Judge, District & Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru) — I.A.No.1/2025 sought condonation of 630 days' delay — affidavit pleaded appellant's illiteracy, unawareness of legal procedure, residence in a remote area, difficulty in obtaining legal advice and health issues, but no day-wise explanation furnished and no document produced to substantiate the health claims — appellant had participated in O.S.No.42/2016 and R.A.No.134/2022 and suffered orders before both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, so want of legal knowledge not acceptable — inordinate delay requires each day's delay to be explained — record discloses concurrent finding — no sufficient cause shown — I.A.No.1/2025 rejected and the second appeal dismissed; in view of dismissal of the main appeal, other pending I.A(s) do not survive and stand dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:49217 RSA No. 277 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.277 OF 2025 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H V KRISHNA NAIK S/O VALYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O HUNASEBYLE VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU- 577129

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI T PUSHPARAJ S/O LATE H T THIMMAIAH AGED 59 YEARS R/O CHURCH CIRCLE, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI POST SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577301

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.134/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, (DISTRICT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:49217 RSA No. 277 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND SESSIONS JUDGE), FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard on the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2025 wherein there is a delay of 630 days in filing this appeal.

¶23

In the affidavit accompanying to the application, it is specifically stated that the First Appellate Court delivered the judgment and decree on 15.03.2023 in R.A.No.134/2022 and the present second appeal is filed on 19.02.2025. The reason assigned in the application to condone the delay is that the appellant is an illiterate person and not aware of the legal procedures involved in filing an appeal and was promptly unable to take the necessary steps to file the appeal and also residing in a remote area and faced significant difficulties in obtaining legal advice and assistance and also suffering from

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:49217 RSA No. 277 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

health issues. Hence, the appellant could not take up the steps in filing this appeal in time.

¶28

These are the reasons assigned in the application to condone the delay of 630 days in filing this appeal. When there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, each day delay has to be explained but there is no any explanation in the affidavit for each day delay. The reason assigned is only that the appellant is an illiterate person and not aware of the legal procedure and did not get legal advice due to significant difficulties and also stated that the appellant was suffering from health issues but no document is placed with regard to health issues is concerned. When the appellant participated in the proceedings in O.S.No.42/2016 as well as in R.A.No.134/2022, the appellant has suffered an order before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, not having legal knowledge cannot be accepted. When such being the case, the reasons assigned in the affidavit is not acceptable reasons. On perusal of material on record, it discloses that there is a concurrent finding. When there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 630 days in filing

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:49217 RSA No. 277 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

this appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected.

¶33

Consequently, this second appeal is also dismissed.

¶34