Dismissed¶30

Sri R Siddalinga Murthy v. Sri Devappa

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 575 days' delay; each day's delay not explained; flimsy affidavit reasons; failure to contact counsel; I.A.No.1/2025 rejected; revision petition dismissed; S. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C; CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025; Criminal Appeal No.2481/2018; LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-62); High Court of Karnataka; H.P. Sandesh, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:36267; CNR: KAHC010649772025.

What did the court decide?

The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the condonation application are not satisfactory, since each day's delay has not been explained properly; the petitioner gave flimsy reasons and never contacted his counsel on record when the appeal was pending or even after its disposal in 2023. ¶30

Sri R Siddalinga Murthy Vs Sri Devappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025

¶3

CNR: KAHC010649772025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1485 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI R SIDDALINGA MURTHY S/O RANGASHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.45/46, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, JAIMARUTHINAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. USHA M V, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M SRI DEVAPPA Location: HIGH S/O G. MUNJAPPA GOWDA COURT OF AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS KARNATAKA R/AT NO. 52/11, 2^ND CROSS VIDHYANAGAR KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560086

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. HARISH N R, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CNR: KAHC010649772025

¶20

SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-62) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2481/2018 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

I.A.No.1/2025 is filed praying this Court to condone the delay of 575 days in filing the petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties on I.A.No.1/2025.

¶26

In the affidavit accompanying to the application to condone the delay of 575 days in preferring this revision petition, the petitioner being an employee of Education Department working as a SDA gives the flimsy reasons in paragraph 7 with regard to the filing of criminal appeal and he never contacted the counsel on record when the appeal was pending. Even in paragraph 11 also, he deposed that surprisingly he met with his advocate. That means he did not made any efforts to contact his advocate even after the disposal of the criminal appeal in the year 2023. The reasons

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36267 CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CNR: KAHC010649772025

¶30

assigned that only the advocate has informed that advocate father was suffering from liver cancer. But what prevented the petitioner to approach the advocate is not stated in the affidavit. The reasons assigned in the said application is not satisfactory since each day delay has not been explained properly. When such affidavit is filed, I do not find any ground to entertain the said application. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶32

Sri R Siddalinga Murthy v. Sri Devappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Siddalinga Murthy v. Sri Devappa

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

Harshwardhan Chauhan Vs State of Karnataka

Shubha Amrutha Vs Rathnakar Venkat Yedanapudi

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Sri. T. D. Murthy

N Gundu Rao Vs D N Jayashree

H P Manjunatha Vs D v Bhujalingappa

Natarajan B Vs the Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt. Ltd.