Sri M a Veerabhadrachari Vs M a Manjunatha Ahcar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri M a Veerabhadrachari Vs M a Manjunatha Ahcar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 521 days in filing the regular second appeal should be condoned on the grounds set out in the supporting affidavit (knowledge of dismissal, inability to contact the advocate, illness of family members, and depression).

Court's answer

Although the deponent had knowledge that the first appeal was dismissed, he took no steps; since there is a concurrent finding below, the averment in para 5 of the affidavit that all family members fell ill cannot be accepted, especially as there are five appellants, and going into depression is not a reason for not filing the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

There is no ground to condone the delay of 521 days: the reason assigned in the application is not satisfactory; the appellants were required to show sufficient cause and to explain the delay of each day, which they did not do.

Key takeaways

The application filed for condonation of delay is rejected, and consequently the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No.90 of 2025 (PAR/POS) under Sec.100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023 in RA No.118/2022 (II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere), whereby the first appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2022 in OS No.647/2010 (3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere) was confirmed. The appeal came on for orders with an application to condone a delay of 521 days in filing, supported by an affidavit pleading that the deponent knew of the dismissal, could not contact his advocate, that all family members fell ill, and that he went into depression. Held (H.P. Sandesh, J.), rejecting the application: despite knowledge of the dismissal no steps were taken; in view of the concurrent finding below, the illness plea could not be accepted, there being five appellants, and depression was not a reason for not filing the appeal; sufficient cause had to be shown and the delay of each day explained, which was not done. The application for condonation of delay was rejected and, consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.90 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SRI M A VEERABHADRACHARI S/O LATE BHARMACHARI SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

SMT. BASAMMA

W/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

SMT. KALAMMA W/O. NAGARAJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M. V. MOUNESHACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

M. V. CHANNABASAVACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

M. V. DEVENDRACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.264, RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE, YERAGUNTE ROAD, NEAR NEW CAMP,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025

HC-KAR

DAVANAGERE - 577 002

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M A MANJUNATHA AHCAR S/O LATE BHARAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

M. A. VEERAPAKSHACHAR S/O LATE BHARAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.1264, SPS NAGARA, BUDAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002

M V CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI

S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.264, RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE, YERAGUNTE ROAD, NEAR NEW CAMP,

DAVANAGERE - 577 002

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.118/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.647/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay, an affidavit is sworn to that he had the knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal and in para 4 of the affidavit it is stated that the disposal of the appeal was brought to the notice of the appellant who filed the affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay. It is sworn in the affidavit that immediately copy was obtained and immediately after securing the certified copy of the judgment, counsel has not informed him to file an appeal before the appellate court, but could not contact the Advocate. It is also stated in the affidavit that all his family members fell ill. Consequent upon the receiving the information that the appeal was dismissed, he went into depression and hence, could not contact the Advocate and file the appeal in time.

Having considered the grounds urged in para 4 of

the affidavit, it is clear that though he had the knowledge that

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025

HC-KAR

the appeal was dismissed, he has not taken any steps. Since there is a concurrent finding, the averments made in para 5 of the affidavit that all the family members fell ill cannot be accepted inasmuch as there are five appellants in the appeal and also the reason that he went into depression cannot be a reason for not filing the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 521 days in filing of the appeal and the reason assigned in the application is not satisfactory and the appellants have to show the sufficient cause and delay of each day has to be explained, the same is not done. Hence, there is no ground to condone the delay. The application filed for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently the appeal is

also dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23