Dismissed¶62

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Channamma

Condonation of delay – Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC – I.A.no.1/2023 for condonation of 390 days' delay in filing appeal

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026RSA/1112/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), RSA No. 1112 of 2023 (PAR), decided 23.01.2026 by Justice Ravi V Hosmani: second appeal against concurrent decrees (O.S.No.284/2008, decree 02.03.2019; RA.No.87/2019 dismissed 07.11.2020) dismissed for want of condonation of 390 days' delay — affidavit gave a 12-day explanation, medical ground unsupported by records — Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 SCC Online SC 1093 relied on; Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The explanation offered in the affidavit covered only 12 days of delay, whereas the actual delay was 390 days; the appellant attributed the delay to asthma and other old-age ailments. ¶62

Sri Shivaramu Vs Smt Channamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHIVARAMU S/O LATE. DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA, AGED AGBOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT, GUNDLAGURKI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT CHANNAMMA W/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. DYAVAMMA S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE. DODDAHANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/ AT, GUNDLAGURKI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101

¶17

SRI. VENKATARAJU S/O LATE. DODDAHANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESIDING AT, CHIKKAMARULI VILLAGE,

¶21

NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562101

¶22

SMT. RATHNAMMA S/O LATE. CHIKKAHANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶23

SRI.VENKATESH S/O LATE.CHIKKA HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE. CHIKKAHNUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT, KANDAVARA, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562101

¶26

SMT.NARASAMMA S/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶27

SRI.BYRAPPA S/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶28

SRI.SRINIVAS S/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶29

RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/AT, 4040 1^ST BLOCK WARD NO.2 VAPASANDRA CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 101

¶30

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE. CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT, BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPRA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101

¶34

SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE. CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT, GUNDLAGURKI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101

¶35

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE. BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT, DIBBUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.

¶36

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEAS, R/AT, BEHIND T.B. CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-5621010.

¶37

G.M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA

¶38

S/O PETE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R.AT, GUNDALGURKI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.

¶39

V.ANANDAMURTHY S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT, ANDHARLAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, GAUNDLAGURKI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.87/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.284/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

I.A.no.1/2023 is filed for condonation of 390 days in filing appeal.

¶49

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that delay was caused on account of ill-health, as appellant is suffering from Asthama and other old age ailments, and therefore, submits that there was sufficient cause for delay and seeks for its condonation.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Heard learned counsel and perused application and

¶53

affidavit filed in support of it.

¶54

As stated above, there is enormous delay of 390

¶55

days in filing this appeal. Only explanation or semblance thereof is in para 3 of affidavit, which reads as follows -

¶56

"3. I advised to submit that, the above appeal should be file within ninety days from the date of Hon'ble lower appellate court judgment. But today I am filing appeal and there is delay of 390 days. The reasons for the delay in filing the above appeal, due to my illness. My counsel herein has advised me to come over to Bengaluru in the first week of this Month. However due to my illness I am suffering from Aasthma and other old age ailments, I am unable to met my counsel in Bengaluru in the first week of this month and consequently failed file this second appeal within time. The accompanying application, has been filed condone the delay of twelve days in filing above Appeal. Hence there is a delay in filing the appeal and the reason for delay is bonfaide one and not intentional one, as mentioned supra. Under these circumstances it is just and proper to allow the accompanying application. If the accompanying application is allowed no hardship or injury would be caused to the respondent herein, per contra if the accompanying application

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4019 RSA No. 1112 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

is not allowed I will be put to great hardship and injury. Hence this Affidavit."

¶60

Perusal of above paragraph would reveal that

¶61

appellant was well aware of period of limitation. It is also

¶62

stated that appellant was advised by his counsel to come over to Bangalore in first week to file appeal, but appellant could not come over and instruct counsel. It was presumed that delay is of 12 days. Consequently, explanation offered in affidavit was for 12 days, instead of 390 days, asthama and other old age ailments have prevented appellant from filing appeal in time. Same is not substantiated with medical records. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1093 has stated that in case of lack of proper explanation, Courts would not be justified in condoning delay. Hence, due to failure to offer reasonable explanation for delay, I.A.no.1/2023 is rejected. Consequently, appeal and application for stay also stand

¶63

dismissed.

¶64

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶65

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Channamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Channamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Director Vs Smt Mamatajunnissa

Sri Bhojashetty, Vs Mrs. Prabvathi R Hegede

Chikkamma Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

Smt K R Rathnamma Vs Smt Muniramakka

Nargis Vs S Avinash

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Rajalakshmamma