Smt. Bharathamma Vs Smt. Lakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Bharathamma Vs Smt. Lakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; I.A.No.1/2020 (condonation of 293 days' delay) rejected and, consequently, the appeal disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 293 days in filing Regular Second Appeal No. 940 of 2020 ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1/2020).

Court's answer

The reasons assigned in the second appellant's affidavit (ill-health, low back pain, rheumatism) are not satisfactory and cannot be termed sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay.

Ratio / Principle

Except for the medical certificate recording that the first appellant is a known patient of epilepsy, no document was furnished to substantiate the pleaded ailments (low back pain, rheumatism) or to show purchase and consumption of the prescribed tablets.

Key takeaways

Had the first appellant truly suffered the claimed incapacity, she could not have successfully conducted the litigation before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.ratio¶¶50
Since the rights of the respondents in the appeal stand settled long back, the huge delay of 293 days cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient causes.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Limitation — Condonation of delay (Section 5, Limitation Act) — Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC presented with a delay of 293 days; I.A.No.1/2020 sought condonation pleading the first appellant's ill-health (epilepsy per medical certificate; low back pain and rheumatism per affidavit of second appellant). Held: apart from the epilepsy certificate, no material proved the other ailments or the purchase/consumption of prescribed tablets; an appellant who successfully conducted the suit and the first appeal could not credibly plead such incapacity; the affidavit reasons did not constitute 'sufficient cause', particularly as the respondents' rights stood settled long back. I.A.No.1/2020 rejected; consequently the appeal disposed of. (Judgment paras 2-8; Order paras 57-60)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2020 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BHARATHAMMA D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

SMT. SOWMYA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

Digitally signed by MALATESH3. KUM. NAVYA K C D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Location: HIGH R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, COURT OF JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI KARNATAKA SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. J.R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

SMT. YESHODAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BANDARLAHALLI VILLAGE HANUMANAHALLI POST DUGGIHALLI HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127.

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE SHAMBANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.

3(A). SMT. KAVITHA D/O GANGAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O RAYALPADI VILLAGE AND HOBLI OPP: GOVT JUNIOR COLLEGE SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 134, KOLAR DISTRICT.

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.538, 2ND STAGE,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

16TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038.

SMT INDIRAMMA D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KEMBODI VILLAGE AND POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102

SMT. V MANJULA D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O HIREDENKANAKAL VILLAGE GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISRICT - 583 283.

SRI. LOKANATH S/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

SRI DEVARAJ S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 102 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. N.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 R3(A) - SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED)

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN RA.No.95/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2012 PASSED IN OS.No.443/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. J.R. Mohan, learned counsel for

the appellants.

There is a delay of 293 days in filing the

present appeal. Along with appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 is filed to condone the huge delay of 293 days in filing the appeal. Application is supported by the affidavit of second appellant who is hale and healthy. Along with affidavit, a medical certificate said to have been issued by the Medical Officer (name not comprehendible), who said to have examined the first respondent Smt. Bharatamma. It is noted in the certificate that said Smt. Bharatamma was

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

known patient of epilepsy and treatment with tablet phenobarbitone 60 mg. She was referred to the major hospital for further investigation and treatment.

In the affidavit it is contended that

because of the ill-health, low back pain, rheumatism, she could not contact the advocate in time to file the appeal.

Except for the disease of epilepsy, there

is no medical certificate or any other document that is furnished to substantiate that she had other illness namely

low back pain and rheumatism. Even for the epilepsy, except the medical certificate there is no other document to show that she had purchased the tablets prescribed by the doctor and she is taking the tablets. Medical certificate also shows that she is the known patient of the epilepsy.

If it is so, she could not have conducted the litigation before the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court successfully.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32600 RSA No. 940 of 2020

HC-KAR

Further, nothing prevented the second

appellant to instruct the counsel and file the appeal in time. As such reasons assigned in the affidavit are not satisfactory to condone the delay as they cannot be termed as sufficient cause in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Moreover, the rights of the respondents in

the appeal, are settled long back. Therefore, huge delay of 293 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned in the case on hand in the absence of sufficient causes.

8. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

I.A.No.1/2020 is rejected. Consequently, the

appeal also disposed off .

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SNC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK