Appellant sought condonation of a 567-day delay in filing a regular second appeal citing old age and financial hardship. The court found no supporting medical evidence and no sufficient cause, dismissed the delay application and consequently the appeal and stay application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. SHANKARAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAGIRI RAO @NDIGE VENKATAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 814, 'VENKATAGIRI, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SL NO.1 TO 5 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O DEVAKATHI KOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 126.
…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO. 56/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO. 448/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, C/C I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.
NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
I.A.no.1/2025 is filed for condonation of 567 days' delay in filing appeal.
HC-KAR
establishment of a sufficient cause, delay can be condoned and it is not quantum of delay, but cause that would matter. 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025
HC-KAR
Hence, I.A.no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal and I.A.no.2/2025 filed for stay also stand dismissed.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 567-day delay in filing the regular second appeal should be condoned for want of sufficient cause?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & AnotherRelied on¶5
2025 SCC Online SC 1093 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Shankaramurthy
Siddeshappa
Yethishappa
Veerappa
Malleshappa
Jayamma
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
