Disposed¶39

Sri. Y C Narayanappa v. Smt. Narasamma

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025RSA/656/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, RSA No. 656 of 2024 (18-12-2025, H.P. Sandesh, J.): second appeal disposed of at admission stage; first appeal filed after 21-year delay dismissed for unexplained delay / sufficient cause not shown (Section 5 Limitation Act; Order 41 Rule 3A CPC); appellant was defendant represented by counsel, suit decreed 13.02.2001 (O.S. No.14/1998, permanent injunction); execution petition prompted the appeal; liberty to pursue comprehensive suit already filed; no substantive question of law framed; filed under Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal disposed of at the admission stage without admission or framing of substantive questions of law; appellant noted to be free to pursue comprehensive relief in the comprehensive suit already filed before the Competent Court. ¶39

Sri. Y C Narayanappa Vs Smt. Narasamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal should be admitted and substantive question(s) of law framed, given that the first appeal was filed after a delay of 21 years which the First Appellate Court found unexplained.

¶39

Court's answer

As the delay of 21 years in filing the first appeal remained unexplained, there is no ground to admit the second appeal or frame substantive question(s) of law.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's ground that he came to know of the judgment and decree only when the respondents filed an execution petition cannot be accepted, since he was a defendant in the suit, represented through counsel, and did not contest the matter.

¶35

Key takeaways

Observation: a comprehensive suit has already been filed by the appellant and others, and the appellant may pursue comprehensive relief before the Competent Court.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No. 656 of 2024 (H.P. Sandesh, J.) — Disposed of at admission stage. The trial suit O.S. No.14/1998 (Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande), for permanent injunction, was decreed on 13.02.2001; the defendant-appellant, though represented by counsel, filed no written statement and did not contest, and execution was later initiated. The first appeal (R.A.No.12/2022) was filed in 2022 after a delay of about 21 years; the condonation application (I.A.No.1/2022, Section 5, Limitation Act) disclosed neither the date nor the extent of delay, and the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Gudibande) by judgment and decree dated 05.01.2024 found no sufficient cause or plausible explanation and dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial decree. Before the High Court, the plea that the appellant learnt of the decree only upon execution was rejected — he was a defendant represented throughout. Holding the 21-year delay unexplained, the Court found no ground to admit the second appeal or frame a substantive question of law and disposed of it, observing that the appellant may pursue comprehensive relief in the comprehensive suit already filed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. Y.C. NARAYANAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O YALAKALARALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561209.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. NARASAMMA D/O CHIKALAKSHMAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O YALAKALARALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561209.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2001 PASSED IN O.S. NO.14/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶25

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal

¶26

on the ground of delay and judgment of the Trial Court was passed on 13.02.2001 in O.S.No.14/1998 and an appeal is filed in the year 2022 and though there was a delay of 21 years, but in the application nowhere stated that what was the delay and specific reason also not assigned in the appeal. The counsel appearing for the appellant also on enquiry placed on record, the copy of the application filed before the Appellate Court wherein also not stated the total delay, but specifically stated in the affidavit that suit was of the year 1998 and the same was disposed of on 13.02.2001 wherein also categorically admitted that the appellant was a defendant and also

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

engaged the counsel and not filed even written statement and suit was decreed. Consequent upon the judgment and decree, execution petition was also filed and filed the present appeal. In the appeal, except stating that no reasons are assigned why there was a delay and it is stated that not having the knowledge about the same and when the appellant being served and represented through counsel and not filed the written statement and subsequent to the same, not contested the matter and with delay of 21 years, first appeal was filed. The First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, particularly considering what they have pleaded and taken note of suit of the year 1998 and judgment was passed on 13.02.2001 and relief also granted only for permanent injunction and while considering the appeal the point Nos.1 and 2, taken note of that no application is filed, a separate application for condonation of delay and also pressed into the service Order 41 Rule 3A, order sheet also discloses that I.A.No.1/2022 was filed invoking

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Section 5 of Limitation Act but not mentioned the date of

¶35

delay. However, the First Appellate Court considering the material on record, when there was an inordinate delay that appeal was filed in 2022 in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that sufficient cause has not been shown and even paragraph No.19 also taken note of, delay of 23 years cannot be condoned. Whether the ground urged by the appellant is that he came to know about the judgment and decree when the respondents have filed an execution petition to execute the judgment and the said ground cannot be accepted as the appellant herein was a defendant in the case and also represented through counsel and did not contest the matter and the same is discussed in paragraph No.19 and hence, not accepted the reasons assigned in the appeal and also comes to the conclusion that no plausible explanation was given and hence, rejected the same having taken note of there was a delay of 21 years in filing the appeal and also the suit is only for the relief of bare injunction and when there was

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

an unexplained delay of 21 years is not explained, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. At this juncture, counsel would submits that already comprehensive suit is filed by the appellant and others and hence, appellant can pursue the remedy before the Competent Court regarding comprehensive relief. With these observations, second appeal is disposed of .

¶40

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶41

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Sri. Y C Narayanappa v. Smt. Narasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Y C Narayanappa v. Smt. Narasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Radha Vs Sri Sridhara

Sri Syed Kaleem Vs Sri Chikkanne Gowda

Sri H M Mahadevaswamy Vs Sri Bhaskara

Madamma Vs Nanjunda

Sri H L Narayana Vs Sri H G Eshwar

Lingappa Vs Mark D'Lima