Dismissed¶55

Brahmachari v. S. Ramamurthy

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025RSA/672/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 805 days' delay; sufficient cause; each day's delay to be explained; COVID period exclusion in computing delay; legal representatives of deceased appellant; second round of litigation; dismissal of second appeal without notice to respondents; Section 100 CPC; Regular Second Appeal; O.S.No.89/2001; R.A.No.32/2009; R.S.A.No.1236/2012 (remand); R.A.No.5023/2017; I.A.No.1/2023; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:42799; H.P. Sandesh J.; decided 28.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Each day's delay had to be explained properly; on the facts of the case, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal. ¶55

Brahmachari Vs S. Ramamurthy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 805 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal ought to be condoned (application I.A.No.1/2023).

¶41

Court's answer

Each day's delay had to be explained properly; on the facts of the case, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Even after excluding the COVID period while calculating the delay, the delay of 805 days is not properly explained.

¶55

Key takeaways

The reasons assigned by the appellants - that they were not aware of the disputes and that their deceased father personally looked after the litigation - cannot be believed, because this is a second round of litigation from the Trial Court up to the High Court.ratio¶51
Since the family has been litigating the property from 2001 till 2018, the reasons assigned by the appellants for the delay cannot be accepted.ratio¶55
There being an inordinate delay of about five years (2018 to 2023) and no sufficient cause shown, the Court finds no ground to issue notice to the respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No.672 of 2023 under Section 100 CPC by the legal representatives of the deceased original appellant Brahmachari against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2018 in R.A.No.5023/2017 (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, Tumkur District), whereby the First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court's post-remand decree in favour of the plaintiff. With the appeal, I.A.No.1/2023 sought condonation of 805 days' delay, the appellants pleading that their father died on 19.08.2019, that he alone looked after the litigation, and that they learnt of the First Appellate Court's decree only in January 2023. Holding that this was a second round of litigation commencing with O.S.No.89/2001 (decree 03.02.2006), confirmed in R.A.No.32/2009 (16.12.2011), with the earlier second appeal R.S.A.No.1236/2012 having been allowed and the matter remanded, and that the family had litigated the property from 2001 till 2018, the Court held the assigned reasons unbelievable and unacceptable, that each day's delay stood unexplained, and that the delay was not properly explained even excluding the COVID period. Finding an inordinate delay of about five years (2018-2023) and no sufficient cause, the Court declined to issue notice to the respondents, dismissed I.A.No.1/2023 and consequently dismissed the appeal; consequential I.As. were held not to survive. Oral judgment of H.P. Sandesh J., dated 28.10.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2023 (DEC/POS-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BRAHMACHARI

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶11

RATHNAMMA

¶12

W/O LATE BRAMHACHARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

TRIVENI D/O LATE BRAMHACHARI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE BRAMHACHARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶16

B YOGEESWARACHARI S/O LATE BRAMHACHARI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶17

JAGDEESWARACHARI S/O LATE BRAMHACHARI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT B K HALLI VILLAGE NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PAVAGADA TALUK

¶22

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561202

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI NARASI REDDY G, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

S. RAMAMURTHY

¶27

S/O VEERABHADRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶28

PADMAVATHAMMA W/O S RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶29

VEERACHARI S/O S RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶30

PARVATHAMMA

¶31

D/O S RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶32

ALL ARE R/AT SHRAVANDNA HALLI VILLAGE KODIGENA HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572132

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5023/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

Heard on I.A.No.1/2023 wherein the learned counsel for the appellants prayed this Court to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal.

¶42

In the affidavit accompanying to the application, it is sworn by the appellants that this matter is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the judgment and decree was passed on 03.02.2006 in O.S.No.89/2001. The said judgment and decree was challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2009 and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.12.2011 and thereafter, R.S.A.No.1236/2012 was filed before this Court challenging the said concurrent finding of both the Courts. This Court allowed the said second appeal and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court. After remand of the matter, the Trial Court passed the judgment and decree on 31.08.2017 and the said judgment and decree was challenged by filing an appeal in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

R.A. No.5023/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed on 03.11.2018.

¶47

It is further stated in the application that their father passed away on 19.08.2019 leaving behind themselves and their mother. The appellants came to know about the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in the month of January 2023 and thereafter, they immediately approached the advocate and obtained the certified copy of the documents and filed the present appeal before this Court. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional, bona fide. Hence, prayed this Court to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the material and record, it discloses that this is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the same was confirmed but this Court set aside the judgments of both the Courts and remitted back the matter to the Trial Court. The Trial Court once again passed the judgment and decree in favour of the

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent/plaintiff and the same was also confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Thus, it appears that on twice, the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that R.A.No.5023/2017 was dismissed on 03.11.2018 and the reason assigned by the appellants for delay in filing this appeal is that their father passed away on 19.08.2019 and they are not aware of the appeal filed by their father since, during lifetime of their father, he was personally looking after the above said disputes. The reason assigned by the appellants cannot be believed for the reason that this litigation is a second round of litigation from the Trial Court to the High Court. The father of the appellants passed away on 19.08.2019 itself but the present appeal is filed in the year 2023 i.e., after the lapse of almost five years. The fact that the appellants were not aware of the disputes and the said contention is not supported by the materials produced before this Court. Having considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit that they were not aware of the disputes and their father was looking after the disputes cannot be a reason when the litigation between the parties from 2001 since original suit was filed and numbered as

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:42799 RSA No. 672 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

89/2001 and family is litigating the property from 2001 till 2018, hence, reason assigned by the appellants cannot be accepted. Each day delay has to be explained properly but in the case on hand, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal inspite of excluding the COVID period while calculating the delay and hence, delay of 805 days is not properly explained. Thus, I do not find any ground to issue notice against the respondents since there is an inordinate delay of five years from 2018 to 2023 and sufficient cause is not shown. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶56

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any,

¶57

do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶58

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶59

Brahmachari v. S. Ramamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmachari v. S. Ramamurthy

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

Kusuma Vs Jayashankara

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, Vs Smt. Latha

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

Sri Nagaiah Vs B M Nissar Ahamed

Shri.K.N.Venkatareddy Vs Kadirappa

Sri Kalamanda P Nanaiah Vs Smt. M R Lolakshi