Ishwar S/O Irappa Muragod vs Kumari. Bhhagyashree
2022 Latest Caselaw 182 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                     CRP NO.100001/2022
BETWEEN

ISHWAR S/O IRAPPA MURAGOD
AGE 52 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI-591312,
TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI
                                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV.)

AND

1 . KUMARI. BHAGYASHREE
    D/O LATE SHAMBU GUNADAL,
    AGE. 14 YEARS,
    OCC. STUDENT,
    R/O. NAGANUR-591224,
    TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI

2 . SMT. PREMA
    W/O LATE SHAMBU GUNADAL,
    AGE. 52 YEARS,
    OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
    R/O NAGANUR-591224,
    TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI

3 . BASAVARAJ
    S/O SHIVASHANKAR GUNADAL
    AGE. 42 YEARS,
    OCC. AGRICULTURE
    R/O NAGANUR-591224,
                              2




   TQ. MUDALAGI,
   DIST. BELAGAVI

4 . MALLAPPA
    S/O SHIVASHANKAR GUNADAL
    AGE. 33 YEARS,
    OCC. AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. NAGANUR-591224,
    TQ. MUDALAGI,
    DIST. BELAGAVI

5 . CHETAN
    S/O SHIVASHANKAR GUNADAL
    AGE. 31 YEARS,
    OCC. AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. NAGANUR-591224,
    TQ. MUDALAGI,
    DIST. BELAGAVI

                                            ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2021
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK IN
R.A.NO.23/2020 ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO. I FILED BY THE
PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 SEEKING CONDONATION
OF DELAY AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE INTERIM
APPLICATION NO.I FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT
IN R.A.NO.23/2020, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3




                          ORDER

The captioned civil revision petition is filed

questioning the order passed by the first appellate court on

an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in

R.A.No.23/2020.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed suit for partition

and separate possession against the respondents herein in

O.S.No.563/2014. The said suit came to be dismissed by

judgment and decree dated 14.02.2018. Respondent Nos.1

and 2 feeling aggrieved have approached the first appellate

court by preferring an appeal in R.A.No.23/2020. Since

there was delay in filing the regular appeal, respondents

moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The said application was stoutly contested by the present

petitioners. The first appellate court having examined the

material on record was of the view that, since the valuable

rights of the parties are involved, the delay needs to be

condoned and appeal has to be heard on merits. The

appellate court was also of the view that, if the delay is not

condoned, the applicants will be put to great loss and

hardship which cannot be compensated by any other

means. This order is under challenge in this revision

petition.

3. I bestowed my anxious consideration to the

reasoning assigned by the first appellate court. The first

appellate court has exercised the discretion judiciously and

to do substantial justice has condoned the delay thereby

allowing the parties to fight the litigation on merits. I do

not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order

under challenge. The grounds urged in the revision petition

are devoid of any merits and accordingly, the civil revision

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-