Smt N Sunitha Vs Smt Shivamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt N Sunitha Vs Smt Shivamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1595 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the causes shown in the affidavit supporting I.A.No.1/2021.

Court's answer

The reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2021 (unparticularised chronic illness unsupported by medical documents, economic hardship, and claimed ignorance of the remedy) do not constitute sufficient cause within the four corners of Section 5 of the Limitation Act; therefore I.A.No.1/2021 is liable to be rejected.

Ratio / Principle

A huge delay of 1595 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned where the affidavit names no specific disease, furnishes no medical advice or documents regarding the deponent's illness, and does not spell out any difficulty faced by the other two appellants in approaching the Court in time.

Key takeaways

While appreciating the appellants' case, the Court cannot lose sight of the doctrine of finality, especially where rights in respect of immovable property were settled by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2015 long ago.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC against judgment and decree dated 13.08.2015 in R.A.No.3/2015 (Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District), arising out of O.S.No.1561/2007 — I.A.No.1/2021 sought condonation of 1595 days' delay — affidavit of first appellant pleaded chronic illness (disease unnamed, no medical documents), economic hardship ('Kumbara Jaathi') and ignorance of the remedy; no explanation offered for the failure of the other two co-appellants to approach the Court in time — Held: reasons not sufficient cause within S.5 Limitation Act; doctrine of finality invoked as rights over immovable property stood settled by the first appellate court long ago — I.A.No.1/2021 rejected; appeal consequently rejected; no order as to costs; pending I.As. do not survive.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. N SUNITHA D/O LATE NAGAPPA, W/O ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.745, 1^ST CROSS, HULIMAVU ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560114.

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. N KALAVATHI D/O LATE NAGAPPA, W/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 562157

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.745, 1^ST CROSS, HULIMAVU ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH 560114

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. AMITH XAVIER C., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT SHIVAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

SRI. BABU S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 114

SRI. RAVICHANDRA S/O RAJASHEKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO 551, 16^TH A MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560034

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-1 TO R-3 - SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1561/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Amith Xavier C., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Rajadithya Sadasivan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4, on I.A.No.1/2021.

There is a delay of 1595 days in filing the appeal.

An application is filed seeking condonation of said delay vide I.A.No.1/2021 supported by an affidavit of

Smt. N. Sunitha, who is the first appellant.

In the affidavit in paragraphs 3 and 4, it has been

stated as under:

" 3. I state that, I was not keeping well for the past several years and also suffering from chronic disease, sugar, lower BP and also I have no other means of income except depending daily wages and earnings from household work and agricultural work, and I come from a economically weaker section and caste (Kumbara Jaathi) since from the time of passing the judgment by the Lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2025 on the file of the Court of Prl. District Judge Bengaluru District and also due to dispute within family members I could not approach this Hon'ble Court in time. I

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

have no means of earnings to afford the cost of litigation and even I or my other sisters/Appellants are not aware that, I can challenge and prefer an Regular Second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Under such circumstances with the Financial assistance from my family members and well wishers I have preferred this Appeal challenging the impugned judgment 13-Aug-2015 passed in the above case by the Lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.03/2015 on the file of the court of Prl. District Judge, Bengaluru District. Hence, I could not able to approach the Advocate within in the limitation time, after passing the Judgment and Order.

4. I state that thereafter I approached my local advocates and they suggested me to file the Regular Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by challenging the judgment Passed by Lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.03/2015 on the file of the court of Prl District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District."

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Deponent had illness of diabetes and lower blood pressure and as such, she was not able to contact the Advocate and file the appeal in time.

It is also contended that the deponent was eking out her livelihood by doing household work and agricultural work and she belongs to economically weaker section of the society, viz. 'Kumabara jaathi'. Therefore,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

could not muster a sum of `200/- being court fee to file the appeal in time. Based on the aforesaid reasons, the appellants want condonation of huge delay of 1595 days.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 has filed the statement of objections to I.A.No.1/2021, refuting the contentions urged in the affidavit.

Pertinently, there are two more appellants, viz., Smt.N. Kalavathi and Smt. Savithramma. What was the difficulty for the other two appellants to approach the Court in time is not even spelt out in the affidavit.

Except mentioning that the Deponent who is the first appellant had severe illness on account of chronic disease (name of the disease not mentioned), no other particulars are forthcoming on record nor any medical advise, documents pertaining to the illness of the deponent and difficulty of the other two appellants in approaching the Court in time having not been stated in

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

the affidavit, huge delay of 1595 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.

The Court also cannot lose sight of the Doctrine of

finality, while appreciating the case put forth on behalf of the appellants, especially, when the rights in respect of the immovable property have been settled by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2015, long ago.

Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2021 would not be sufficient cause within the four corners of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2021 is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. I.A.No.1/2021 seeking condonation of delay of

1595 days in filing the appeal is rejected;

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32276 RSA No. 604 of 2021

HC-KAR

ii. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected.

iii. No order as to costs.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As. do

not survive for consideration.

Sd/JUDGE

(V SRISHANANDA)

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32