C.K Nagaraju Vs Puttamallegowda — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

C.K Nagaraju Vs Puttamallegowda — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether IA No.1/2022 seeking condonation of a 945-day delay in filing the regular second appeal discloses sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellant gave no explanation whatsoever for the period between disposal of the Regular Appeal on 08.08.2017 and his application for the certified copy on 13.01.2022.

Ratio / Principle

The nationwide lockdown on account of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred much after disposal of the appeal on 08.08.2017 and therefore could not account for the 945-day delay.

Key takeaways

Inability to arrange the court fee was not accepted as sufficient reason: the appellant could have sought financial assistance from the Legal Services Authority on the ground of poverty, or filed the second appeal in forma pauperis, but made no such attempt.ratio¶36
The reasons assigned in the affidavit are not satisfactory to condone the huge delay of 945 days.ratio¶37
When a party does not choose to agitate his rights in time, the doctrine of finality becomes applicable and the rights of the parties get settled.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (V Srishananda, J.) — REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2022 (SP), decided 19-06-2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:30487): RSA under Section 100 CPC by C.K. Nagaraju against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in RA.No.73/2016, dismissing his appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattna in O.S.No.81/2015 — a suit for specific performance. IA No.1/2022 sought condonation of a 945-day delay in filing. Held: (i) the affidavit contentions were unsubstantiated and the period between disposal of the first appeal on 08.08.2017 and the certified-copy application on 13.01.2022 was left wholly unexplained; (ii) the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown fell much after disposal of the appeal and could not excuse the delay; (iii) inability to arrange the court fee of Rs.56,625/- was unsatisfactory — the appellant could have sought financial assistance from the Legal Services Authority on the ground of poverty or filed in forma pauperis, but made no attempt; (iv) a party who does not timely agitate his rights faces the doctrine of finality, whereby the parties' rights stand settled; (v) the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be exercised 'just for asking' absent sufficient cause, more so in a suit for specific performance. Consequently, IA No.1/2022 rejected and the second appeal dismissed.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:30487 RSA No. 960 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2022 (SP)

BETWEEN:

C.K. NAGARAJU S/O LATE KALICHENNAIAH @ KALICHENNA HEGGADE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DSITRICT - 562 160

PRESENTLY R/AT RAGHAVENDRA POOJA ANGADI 1^ST CROSS, KUMBARABEEDI OLD MADRAS ROAD K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH S., ADVOCATE) AND:

PUTTAMALLEGOWDA S/O LATE MUDDAMALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT BHUHALLI VILLAGE VIRPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30487 RSA No. 960 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.08.2017 PASSED IN RA.NO.73/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA . DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTNA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard on IA No.1/2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed IA No.1/2022 to condone the huge delay of 945 days in filing the present second appeal.

Appellant has sworn the affidavit in support of the

said application, wherein at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it has been contended as under:

"6. I state that the trial court has decreed the suit within period of 5 months from the date of filing the suit without affording sufficient opportunity to contest my case on all reasonable grounds.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30487 RSA No. 960 of 2022

HC-KAR

7. I state that I am the bonded labour, hence, I had gone to some other places for work to lead my family, because my entire family members are depending upon income earned by me for livelihood. I am not educated; I do not have any regular sources of income except as stated above. Meantime, due to continuation of COVID-19 Pandemic and also Lockdown declared by the Hon'ble Govt., due to my old age related health issues and also due to social and economic backwardness. There is nobody in my Family who could contact my lawyer to help me in prosecuting court litigation. I came to know about the result of the case recently through my lawyer when I contacted in the office and arranged to obtain copy of the judgment. Moreover, I have to pay huge amount of court fee of Rs.56,625/- to file appeal before this Hon'ble court. Hence, after arranging funds I have contacted my advocate at Bengaluru seeking assistance to file this appeal. The delay, if any in filing this appeal is for the above stated bonafide reasons.”

To substantiate the above contentions, there is no

material on record. Further, as could be seen from the certified copies, the endorsement made in the certified copies, copy came to be applied only on 13.01.2022. What happened between the period of disposal of the Regular Appeal on 08.08.2017 to 13.01.2022, he has not explained at all in the affidavit. Nationwide lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic was much after the disposal of the appeal on 08.08.2017.

It is also pertinent to note that in the affidavit, no

reasons are assigned, except stating that the appellant could

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30487 RSA No. 960 of 2022

HC-KAR

not arrange the court fee in a sum of Rs.56,625/-. If it is so, appellant could have taken the assistance of Legal Services Authority by applying for financial assistance on the ground of poverty or in the alternative, effort should have been made to file the second appeal before this Court as 'in Forma Pauperis'.

No such attempt has been made by the appellant. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not satisfactory to condone the huge delay of 945 days.

It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that when a party does not choose to agitate his rights in time, doctrine of finality would be made applicable and rights of the parties would get settled.

No doubt the power is available in this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if there is sufficient cause made out. But in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for the condonation of delay, delay cannot be condoned just for asking. More so, having regard to the fact that the suit is one for specific performance.

NC: 2026:KHC:30487 RSA No. 960 of 2022

5 -

HC-KAR

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out by the appellant to

condone the huge delay of 945 days.

Hence, the following Order:

ORDER

IA No.1/2022 is rejected .

Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed .

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30