Sri H R Ravichandra, Vs Smt. Shanthamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri H R Ravichandra, Vs Smt. Shanthamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal dismissed; no relief to the appellant. Exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed, payable at the Registry within two weeks and vesting with the State; failing payment, the Registry is directed to recover the same from the appellant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in disposing of the first appeal solely on the point of delay (Point No.3) without deciding Points Nos.1 and 2 on merits, i.e., whether the delay of 10 years, 4 months and 18 days in filing the first appeal was satisfactorily explained. +2 more

Court's answer

There was an inordinate, unexplained delay of 10 years, 4 months and 18 days in filing the first appeal (the COVID-19 explanation being bald); the First Appellate Court committed no error in dismissing the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The contention that Section 17 of the Limitation Act attracted and gave the appellant three years from discovery of the fraud to file the first appeal cannot be accepted; Section 17 applies where a suit or application is founded on fraud in obtaining the decree, and no case of fraud was pleaded.

Key takeaways

Fraud, when asserted, must be pleaded with particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC; nothing was pleaded before the First Appellate Court or before this Court regarding fraud, and the plea pressed for the first time in the second appeal cannot avail.ratio¶104
The appellant had knowledge of the judgment and decree from 2019 itself, as his own counsel admitted the F.D.P. Court notice was served and Vakalath was undertaken on 13.12.2019 and filed on 07.03.2020; the affidavit assertion of knowledge only in 2021 was false, and even from 2021 the appeal filed on 22.11.2022 was about three years late.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.; oral judgment dated 11.12.2025) — Regular Second Appeal No.92 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:52672) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2025 in R.A. No.112/2022 (I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) dismissing as time-barred the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2012 in O.S.No.457/2009 (Principal II Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District), whereby the plaintiff was held entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and the sale by defendant Nos.1 to 3 through their attorney in favour of defendant No.4 (the appellant, kept ex parte after the RPAD notice was returned 'unclaimed') was declared not binding on her. Dismissing the second appeal with exemplary costs of Rs.5,00,000/- payable at the Registry within two weeks and vesting in the State, the Court held: (i) the delay of 10 years, 4 months and 18 days was inordinate and unexplained, the COVID-19 plea being bald; (ii) the fraud plea invoking Section 17 Limitation Act fails — Section 17 applies to suits/applications founded on fraud, fraud must be pleaded with particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and no fraud was pleaded before the First Appellate Court or this Court, the plea being urged for the first time in the second appeal; (iii) the appellant had knowledge of the decree from 2019 itself (FDP notice served; Vakalath undertaken 13.12.2019 and filed 07.03.2020), making the affidavit claim of 2021 knowledge a falsehood and a fraud on the court — a litigant without clean hands gets no discretionary relief — and even from 2021 the appeal filed on 22.11.2022 was about three years late; (iv) even assuming no proper service, the appeal ought to have been filed within time of knowledge; (v) precedents condoning delays of 276, 546 and 650 days (N. Mohan v. R. Madhu; Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh; Gundappa v. Topanna) do not assist absent pleaded fraud; and (vi) relying on the Apex Court's 2025 decision in Shivamma (paras 140-142), a lethargic litigant who fails to explain inordinate delay cannot claim consideration on merits.