Dismissed¶60

The Director v. Smt. Suraya Banu

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026RSA/2220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RSA No. 2220 of 2023 (INJ), V Srishananda J., decided 21.07.2026. Government appeal (Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage; Chief Secretary; Deputy Commissioner Chamarajanagar) against injunction decree reversed in first appeal RA 84/2019 from suit OS 83/2013, Yelandur. 569-day delay in filing not condoned; application and appeal dismissed. Obiter: lessee-appellants may pursue independent proceedings; injunction decree subservient to any future decree in their favour. Keywords: condonation of delay, Section 100 CPC, second appeal, injunction decree, lease, procedural lapses, abatement against R6.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find any good grounds to condone the delay of 569 days in filing the appeal; accordingly the condonation application is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

The Director Vs Smt. Suraya Banu — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 569 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal should be condoned.

¶40

Court's answer

This Court does not find any good grounds to condone the delay of 569 days in filing the appeal; accordingly the condonation application is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶54

Key takeaways

Observation: if the appellants have a subsisting interest based on the lease granted by the original owner, they may file appropriate proceedings to protect their interest.obiter¶52
Observation: if such future proceedings are initiated and the appellants succeed after contest, the injunction decree which is the subject matter of the present appeal would be subservient to the decree obtained in their favour.obiter¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by the Director, Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, and the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar, against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2021 in RA No.84/2019 (Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar), which had allowed the first appeal and set aside the injunction decree dated 4.11.2019 in OS No.83/2013 (Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelandur) in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Condonation of a 569-day delay in filing (attributed to procedural lapses in communication between the District Government Advocate, Chamarajanagar, and the concerned clerk) was opposed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5. The Court held there were no good grounds to condone the delay, dismissed the application and consequently dismissed the appeal. It observed that if the appellants have a subsisting interest under the lease granted by the original owner they may file appropriate proceedings, and that any decree obtained therein would render the injunction decree subservient. The appeal had already stood dismissed as abated against Respondent No.6 by order dated 10.07.2023.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:38037 RSA No. 2220 of 2023

¶4

CNR: KAHC010683472023

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2220 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, MUSEUMS AND HENTAGE, DODDAKERE MAIDANA, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶11

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, DOUBLE ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 574 112.

¶14

(BY SRI. SESHU V, AGA)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. SURAYA BANU W/O. LATE MAZAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

Y. M. MUZAMIL ALI KHAN S/O. LATE MAZAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶19

Y. M. NOOREA CHESHMA S/O. LATE MAZAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:38037 RSA No. 2220 of 2023

¶23

CNR: KAHC010683472023

¶24

Y. M. NOOREA ASMA D/O. LATE MAZAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶25

THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER 5TH RESPONDENT,

¶26

Y. M. MUFASIL ALI KHAN S/O. LATE MAZAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT 5TH CROSS, NEAR CANARA BANK, YELANDUR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 441.

¶28

Y. A. TAJAMULLA ALI KHAN S/O. LATE ABDUL SATTHAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT SOPPINA KERI, 1ST CROSS, K.K. ROAD, YELANDUR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 441.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.07.2023, APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED AS AGAINST R6)

¶31

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2021 PASSED IN RA NO.84/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGAR., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.11.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.83/2013 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELANDUR.

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:38037 RSA No. 2220 of 2023

¶35

CNR: KAHC010683472023

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶40

There is a delay of 569 days in filing the appeal. In

¶41

the affidavit in support of the application, it is contended that delay is on account of procedural lapses as there is a communication between District Government Advocate, Chamarajanagar and the concerned clerk who was required to put up the note for preparing the appeal.

¶42

It is further contended that Government is the

¶43

owner of the property and Department of Archeology, Museum and Heritage and is the lessee from the original owner for a period of 33 years and they are in lawful possession and the injunction decree that has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. As such, on the ground of delay alone, if the appeal is dismissed,

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:38037 RSA No. 2220 of 2023

¶47

CNR: KAHC010683472023

¶48

appellants would be put to great hardship and injury and thus sought for allowing the application.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 opposes the condonation of delay.

¶50

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶51

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the decree is only an injunction decree.

¶52

If the appellants are having the subsisting interest based on the lease granted by the original owner, they may file appropriate proceedings to protect their interest.

¶53

If any such proceedings is initiated and if the appellants are successful after contest, the decree which is the subject matter of the present appeal, it needs no emphasis that injunction decree would be subservient to such decree which would be in favour of the appellants.

¶54