Sri. Basavaraju vs Smt. Mayamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2365 Kant

                            1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.890 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI.BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT SRINIVAS AGRAHARA
K.SHEETAHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438
                                  ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SRINIVAS V, ADV.)

AND:

SMT.MAYAMMA
W/O HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT SRINIVAS AGRAHARA
K.SHEETAHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438
                                ... RESPONDENT

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC., AGAISNT THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 PASSED
ON I.A.NO.1 IN RA NO.32/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SRIRANGAPATNA
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED BY APPELLANT AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FILED
                              2
AGAINST THE JDUGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2018
PASSED IN OS NO.24/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL    CIVIL  JUDGE    AND    JMFC,    AT
SRIRANGAPATNA.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISISON THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

1. The Appellate Court has refused to condone the

delay of 3 years 4 months in filing the appeal and has

dismissed I.A.No.1 and consequently, the appeal.

2. Admittedly, the suit was decreed on 13.03.2018 and

the appeal was filed on 05.10.2021 ie., after a period of

almost three and a half years.

3. The only reason put forth while seeking for

condonation of delay was that the appellant was suffering

from Jaundice and he was taking treatment from a native

physician and also at some hospital.

4. The Appellate Court has found that the reasons

offered for the delay were unacceptable and the document

produced indicated that he was treated for a gastric

condition and not jaundice and therefore there was no

justification to condone the inordinate delay of 3½ years.

5. In my view, the Appellate Court has correctly

rejected the application for condonation of delay and

consequently also the appeal.

6. I find no reason to entertain this second appeal and

consequently, this second appeal is dismissed.

7. Since, the appeal has been dismissed, the

compliance of office objection, would not arise.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH