Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddappa S/O Laxmappa Sonnad vs Sri Mahammedsaheb S/O Noorali Bisti on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
RSA No. 100829 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100829 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA SONNAD,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHAMMEDSAHEB S/O. NOORALI BISTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
SRI. VENKAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA SONNAD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed
by GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
2. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VENKAPPA SONNAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
DHARWAD
BENCH R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
3. SRI. LAXMAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA SONNAD,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
RSA No. 100829 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MUDHOL IN R.A.NO.05/2023 AND THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.09.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.274/2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
MUDHOL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard both sides on I.A. No.2/2026.
2. I.A. No.2/2026 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 196 days in filing the appeal.
3. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.2/2026, the appellant has stated that the First Appellate Court has passed the judgment and decree on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, he applied for certified copy on 19.03.2025 and obtained the same on 26.03.2025. Subsequently, he approached his advocate and filed the present appeal. It is further stated that he was not aware that the appeal had to be -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR filed within 90 days, and due to certain unavoidable circumstances he could not file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. It is contended that the delay is neither intentional one nor deliberate one, but for the circumstances stated above. Hence prayed for condonation of delay of 196 days.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections to I.A.No.2/2026 contending that the appellant was fully aware of dismissal of his appeal on 12.12.2024, but he has not assigned any acceptable reason for filing the appeal belatedly. It is further stated about facts of the case that, after passing the judgment and decree by the Trial Court, E.P.No.22/2017 was filed, wherein the present appellant appeared as JDLR No.2, but he did not file any statement of objections till the closure of the execution petition on 29.08.2024, on which date the execution petition was closed as fully satisfied, since the rectified sale deed as prayed in the suit had already -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR been registered. Despite being fully aware of these facts and despite there being no merit in the appeal, the appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay, wherein no acceptable reasons are assigned. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.2/2026.
5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the appellant proves that he was prevented from sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation?"
6. My finding on the above point is in 'negative', for the following reasons:
6.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 passed in R.A. No.5/2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR 6.2. As per Article 116 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing a second appeal is 90 days from the date of decree. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed within the said period. However, the present appeal has been filed with delay of 196 days.
6.3. The only reason assigned by the appellant for the delay is that he was not aware that the appeal had to be filed within 90 days and that due to certain unavoidable circumstances he could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. However, the appellant has not explained what are those unavoidable circumstances in the affidavit annexed I.A. No.2/2026. 6.4. Mere ignorance of the period of limitation cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. These aspects assume importance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR 6.5. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff on 08.08.2016 against the defendant seeking rectification of the plot number in the sale deed dated 12.11.2004 executed by the defendant. In the said suit, the defendant appeared through his counsel, but did not contest the matter by filing written statement.
6.6. The said suit was decreed on 08.09.2017. After passing of the decree, Execution Petition No.22/2017 was filed. During pendency of the said execution petition, the original Judgment Debtor (JDR) died on 08.10.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff/Decree Holder (DHR) filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC on 11.07.2019 seeking to implead the present appellant as Judgment Debtor No.2, since his name was reflected in the revenue records. After service of notice of the said application, Judgment Debtor No.2/present appellant -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR appeared though his counsel, but did not file objections to the execution petition. Ultimately, on 11.08.2020, the said application was allowed and he was impleaded as Judgment Debtor No.2. 6.7. Subsequently, on 21.08.2024, as per the order of the Court, the Court Commissioner has executed and got registered rectified sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/Decree Holder, and thereafter, on 29.08.2024, the execution petition was closed as fully satisfied. The present appellant was fully aware of the said proceedings. In the meanwhile, the appellant had filed R.A. No.5/2023 on 17.04.2023 challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017, and the same came to be dismissed on merits on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed on 24.09.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit itself was not maintainable in -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR law, as suit for rectification of sale deed was filed three years after the sale deed, and therefore the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. The date of sale deed cannot be the date to file a suit for rectification of sale deed.
8. As per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the limitation prescribed is three years to file a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, from the date when the right to sue accrues.
9. In the instant case, in the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 02.08.2016, when he came to know that the defendant was intending to alienate or transfer the suit schedule property to a third party by taking advantage of the wrong mention of the plot number in the sale deed of the plaintiff and by continuing his name in the Record of Rights, and further refused to execute the rectification deed.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. Thus, from the date of cause of action i.e., from 02.08.2016, the present suit was filed on 08.08.2016, which is within the period of limitation. Hence, the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
11. As observed above, no acceptable reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2/2026 for condoning the delay of 196 days in preferring the present appeal. The appellant applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 19.03.2025 and obtained the same on 26.03.2025. Only for those seven days, a reasonable explanation is available.
12. For the remaining period of delay, no satisfactory reason has been assigned. Hence, considering these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to establish that he was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948 RSA No. 100829 of 2025 HC-KAR prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in negative.
13. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) I.A. No.2/2026 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
ii) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE gab - upto para 6.5 vb - para 6.6 to end CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22