Dismissed¶53

Smt. Sakamma v. Smt. Jayalakshmamma

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025RSA/564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; Section 100 CPC; inordinate delay of 5 years 6 months / almost 6 years; no sufficient cause; substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; H.P. Sandesh; RSA No. 564 of 2024; R.A.No.30/2022; O.S.No.93/2014; Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Gubbi; Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Gubbi; Tumakuru; Ex.P.7 report dated 03.12.2008; Ex.P.1 service of summons on daughter-in-law held sufficient; appellants dead by LRs.

What did the court decide?

There is no sufficient cause shown by the appellant to condone the inordinate delay of almost 6 years in filing the appeal; the material relied on (Ex.P.7, a report dated 03.12.2008) predates the 2016 judgment and leaves the 2016-2022 gap unexplained ¶45

Smt. Sakamma Vs Smt. Jayalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25190 RSA No. 564 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.564 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAKAMMA, DEAD BY LRS.

¶10

1(a) SMT. BYATAMMA, D/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. BYATARANGAIAH, S/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT BYATAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, SURIGENAHALLI MAZARE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU-572 216.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. DEEPAK D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYAMMA, W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 34,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25190 RSA No. 564 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

2^ND STAGE, 21^ST CROSS, MALAGALA, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶22

SMT. LAKKAMMA, W/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. RANGAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. BORAMMA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, W/O BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT BYATAPPANAPALYA, SURIGENAHALLI KAVAL, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU-572 216.

¶27

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O KUNTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIPURA, NAGASANDRA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU-572 134.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5 AND R6; SRI. C.S. MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;

¶30

NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶31

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2023

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25190 RSA No. 564 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

PASSED IN R.A.NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.93/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.

¶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

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

¶39

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

This Court had earlier heard the matter in part and directed the learned counsel for the appellants to produce the exhibits, which have been marked in R.A. Court to condone the delay since there was a delay of 5 years 6 months in filing the appeal. Now the learned counsel has produced the copy of the document Ex.P.7, which was marked before the Appellate Court.

¶41

Having perused the document of Ex.P.7, it is only

¶42

a report dated 03.12.2008. On perusal of the records, the judgment of the Trial Court was passed on 09.09.2016 and the appeal was filed in 2022 almost after 6 years and no document is placed on record in between 2016 to 2022.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25190 RSA No. 564 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Hence, the Appellate Court while considering the I.A. for condonation of delay, having noticed that there was a delay of 6 years in filing the appeal, comes to the conclusion that the delay has not been explained. On perusal of the order impugned dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the First Appellate Court taken note of Ex.P.1, which shows that service of suit summons on defendant No.1 was made on her daughter-in-law and the same was held sufficient by the Trial Court. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.12 taken note that the material on record discloses that the appellant urged ground of ill-health for not filing of the appeal within time pertaining to the judgment dated 09.09.2016 and produced the medical records dated 03.12.2008. This shows that there is no sufficient cause shown by the appellant to condone the inordinate delay of almost 6 years in filing the appeal.

¶46

Even inspite of this Court granted time to produce the exhibits which have been marked in the First Appellate Court, the only document placed before the First Appellate Court is of the year 2008 and the suit was disposed of in 2016 and no sufficient reasons are assigned. Having considered

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25190 RSA No. 564 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to entertain the second appeal and there was an inordinate delay of almost 6 years as observed by the First Appellate Court and in the absence of sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 5 years 6 months, the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal. No ground is made out to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶50