Sri K Ravikumar vs Sri K.J.Krishnappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 518 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 518 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Ravikumar vs Sri K.J.Krishnappa on 8 January, 2021

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.28 OF 2018

BETWEEN :

SRI K. RAVIKUMAR
S/O K.J. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE,
H.M. HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 157.
                                             ... PETITIONER

(By SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL., ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      SRI K.J.KRISHNAPPA
        S/O JAYANNA
        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2.      SRI. J. SRINIVAS
        S/O JAYANNA,
        AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

        BOTH ARE R/AT KODAGALAHATI VILLAGE
        H.M. HALLI POST
        JALA HOBLI,
        BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 560 157.
                               2



3.   SMT. KAMINI R. RAMNANI
     W/O N. RAMESH
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     R/AT NO.33, 11TH MAIN,
     MALLESHWARAM,
     BENGALURU - 560 003.

4.   M/S SAMMYA'S DREAMLAND PVT. LTD.
     (A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER
     COMPANIES ACT 1956),
     HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT
     HOSAHALLI, H.M. HALLI POST
     JALA HOBLI,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR
     SRI. N. RAMESH - 560 020.

5.   KUM. K. CHAITRA
     D/O K.J. KRISHNAPPA
     R/AT KODAGALHATTI VILLAGE
     H.M. HALLI POST
     JALA HOBLI,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 057.

6.   SRI. K. MAHESH KUMAR
     S/O K.J. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE,
     H.M. HALLI POST
     JALA HOBLI,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 057.

                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    SRI. Y.N. MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
    R1,R2 & R4 ARE SERVED)
                                3



     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN RA
NO.15016/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 3A R/W SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT.



     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

The appellant No.1 in RA No.15016/2016 on the file of

the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli (for

short, 'the appellate Court') has filed this revision petition

calling in question the order dated 06.06.2017 whereby, the

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal rejecting the

petitioner's application for condonation of delay.

2. The suit in O.S.No.377/2006, a suit for partition,

filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 is

dismissed, and the petitioner and respondent No.6 being

aggrieved by this judgment and decree have preferred a

belated first appeal in RA No.15016/2016. This appeal is

delayed by 190 days. As such, they have also filed an

application under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay.

They have stated in support of this application that the delay

was bona fide and not intentional inasmuch as they were not

aware of dismissal of the suit on 29.8.2015 and they have

filed the appeal immediately on coming to know about

dismissal of the suit. The petitioner, to show cause against

the delay, has also contended that he was working with the

police department and the second appellant before the

appellate Court was working as an employee in a private

enterprises and as such, they could not be in frequent touch

with the learned counsel on record for them.

3. The appellate Court considering the petitioner's

case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has opined

that both the appellants (the petitioner and the respondent

No.6) being educated and employed would understand the

consequences of not following up with the learned counsel

and that they should have made necessary arrangement.

Therefore, the cause shown by the petitioner and respondent

No.6 for condonation of delay would not suffice to condone

the delay.

4. It is settled that the Courts while considering the

applications for condonation of delay cannot take a pedantic

view and must lean in favour of condonation of delay unless it

is shown that the delay is unintentional or deliberate, or that

the third party rights have intervened during the delayed

period. In the present case, none of those circumstances are

set out, and merely because the petitioner is educated and

employed, it cannot be inferred that he is not diligent in

following up with the learned counsel. In fact, rigors of duty

with the police department could be, in certain

circumstances, cited as sufficient cause for condonation of

delay. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order

cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the following:

ORDER

a) The petition is allowed in part. The impugned judgment dated 6.6.2017 in R.A.No.15016/2016 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, is set- aside. The appeal in RA No.15016/2016 is restored to the board of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli for decision on merits.

b) The parties to appear before the appellate Court without further notice on 04.02.2021. The appellate Court to take all measures for an expedited decision in the appeal and the parties shall assist the appellate Court in such expedited decision.