Smt. Leelamma Dead by Lrs Smt Padma Vs Smt. Premakumari

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LEELAMMA DEAD BY LRS, SMT. PADMA, D/O. LATE LEELAMMA, W/O. BANUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 17^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 086. AND ALSO R/AT: A. D. COLONY, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 101.

¶8

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O. RAJARATHNAM, D/O. LATE SANJEEVAPPA, @ MASANIGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. A. D. COLONY, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN PIN-562 101.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR S. S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. PREMAKUMARI, W/O LATE PALARAJ, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI. PRAKASH, S/O. PALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. SHEELA, D/O. PALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. DEVADAS, S/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. SUNANDA, D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. SATYARAJ SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,

¶22

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE SATYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. SHYAMALA, D/O LATE SATYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O. SATYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. NAVEENKUMAR, S/O. LATE SATYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶26

SRI.SWAMY DAS, S/O BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SMT. SAMPATHKUMARI D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶30

SMT. SUVARNAMMA, D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶31

SMT. KUMARI D/O LATE YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶32

SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶33

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF A. D. COLONY, CHIKKABALLAPURA, PIN CODE- 562 101.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. SANDESH A. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R10; V/O. DATED 23.09.2024, NOTICE TO R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O. DATED 09.09.2025, R4, R5 AND R12 TO R14 ARE CALLED OUT ABSENT)

¶36

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.I IN RA NO.125/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE IA NO.I FILED UNDER SEC.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT., AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.841/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶37

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

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

This matter is listed for admission.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and also

¶45

the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

¶46

It is unfortunate that the First Appellate Court being the statutory Appellate Authority dismissed the application for condonation of delay, when there was a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal and when the appellants pleaded that appellant No.2 was suffering from viral fever and had headache, hence she could not contact the counsel to prefer an appeal within time.

¶47

The legal representatives of respondent No.6 have filed the objections contending that reasons assigned are not acceptable since the Trial Court has considered the pleadings of the parties and came to a conclusion that the reasons assigned were not satisfactory and also medical records were not produced before the Court to substantiate the reasons assigned in the application.

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the First Appellate Court has not only dismissed the application on the delay but also on merits, a perusal of the reasoning of the First Appellate Court clearly depicts that there is no discussion with regard to the merit is concerned and the operative portion of the order clearly states that the delay application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶52

While considering the application for condonation of delay, the First Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the application only on the ground of not offering satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal when the delay was only for 56 days. This is nothing but a callous attitude of the First Appellate Court. When the statutory appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court, it ought to have considered the same on merits and substantive justice must be done and the parties who approach the Court shall not suffer only on the technicalities. The First Appellate Court should also not forget that, it is bound to render justice

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:42543 RSA No. 390 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

between the parties within the frame work of law, rather than dwelling on technicalities.

¶57

Hence, the impugned order dismissing the application on the ground that no explanation is offered, that too for a period of 56 days delay, is required to be set aside and matter requires to be considered on merits as the First Appellate Court being the statutory Appellate Court. The records disclose that suit is filed for removal of partition and separate possession in the year 2008 and suit was disposed of on 09.07.2019, that too after a decade and the First Appellate Court dismissed the same on threshold without considering the same on merits. Hence, the appeal has to be disposed of expeditiously.

¶58

In view of the above, The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the First Appellate Court on I.A.No.1 is set aside and delay of 56 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose of the appeal within a period of six months and the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.11.2025 without

¶59