Dismissed¶¶41

Smt. Krishnamma v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025RSA/52/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RSA No. 52 of 2021 (INJ), decided 11-06-2025 by H.P. Sandesh J. Condonation of delay — 944 days' delay in filing appeal against ex-parte-decree-based injunction judgment in O.S.No.377/2012 (decree 26.11.2014, II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura); plea of ill-health unsupported by any document; execution case No.8/2017 preceded the appeal; Section 5 Limitation Act; Section 100 CPC; no substantial question of law; First Appellate Court order dated 02.07.2020 in R.A.No.5027/2019 upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Nothing was placed before the First Appellate Court to substantiate the plea of ill-health; no explanation was given for the inordinate delay of 944 days and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation. ¶¶39

Smt. Krishnamma Vs Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT KERALALUSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562159.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RATHNAMMA

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

W/O MUNISWAMAIAH AED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT KERALALUSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. SHALINI B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN R.A.NO.5027/2019 (OLD R.A.NO.30/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.377/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶27

learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.377/2012 is that plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant is illegally interfering with lawful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for the relief of permanent injunction.

¶29

The Trial Court issued notice to the defendant in O.S.No.377/2012 i.e., the appellant herein and appellant engaged the counsel and did not file any written statement and not contested the matter. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in the year 2014. Inspite of suit being decreed in the year 2014, appeal was not filed in time and it was filed in 2017. The

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondent/plaintiff also filed Execution Case No.8/2017 and after filing of execution case, appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and reason for the delay is that she was not keeping well and there was a delay of 944 days in filing the appeal.

¶33

The First Appellate Court also given liberty to explain the reason for delay in filing the appeal and she was also examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 and not placed any document regarding delay is concerned. The First Appellate Court considering the fact that there is no explanation for the delay caused, comes to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons are assigned for condonation of delay and since there was delay of more than three years, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay rejecting I.A.No.1 and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by both the orders of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, present regular second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for appellant would contend

¶35

that the delay has caused due to ill-health and she could not file written statement in time and contest the matter before the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Trial Court and also could not file the appeal. To substantiate the said contention of ill-health, nothing is placed before the First Appellate Court and no explanation is given for the inordinate delay and no sufficient cause is shown to condone the same. When such being the case, when notice was served in the original suit and represented through counsel and not contested the matter and in the appeal also, inordinate delay of 944 days was not satisfactorily explained. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that each day’s delay of 944 days has not been explained. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to the

¶40

appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶41

Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt. Krishnamma v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishnamma v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rudramma Shedthi @ Rudrakshiamma Vs Mr Rajarama Shetty

Smt.Yashoda Vs Sri.Muniraju

H Hanumegowda Vs H R Ranganatha

Sri S C Amaresh Vs Sri. Adavi Siddaiah

Sri Chandregowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dhrakshayanamma Vs Samudregowda @ Annaiah