Karnataka High Court
Sudhakar S/O Saopanrao Pichare vs Lochanabai And Ors on 22 March, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200073/2017
Between:
Sudhakar S/o Sopanrao Pichare
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq: Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
... Appellant
(By Sri Prashant S. Kumman, Advocate)
And:
1. Lochanabai W/o Venkatrao Vasle
Age:52 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Gurdal, Tq:Devani, Dist:Latur
(Maharashtra State)-410 004
2. Sunanda W/o Venkatrao
Age:56 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Takli, Tq: Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
3. Shakkubai W/o Late Madan Pichare
Age:59 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
2
4. Meena W/o Ashok Pichare
Age: 37 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
5. Ajees S/o Ashok Pichare
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
6. Atul S/o Ashok Pichare
Age: 19 years, Occ: Student
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
7. Manisha W/o Angad Balwant
Age: 35 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Velegaon, Tq: Devani Dist: Latur
(Maharashtra State)-410 004
8. Chandsab S/o Khasimsab Shaikh
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
9. Mamtajbee W/o Chandsab Shaikh
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
10. Suresh S/o Vithalrao Pichare
Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
11. Ansuyabai W/o Late Govindrao Suryawanshi
Age: 59 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
3
12. Lalitabai W/o Sudhakar Pichare
Age: 49 years, Occ: household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
13. Khaja Munnamiyan S/o Khaja Mainoddin
Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
14. Khaja Moinuddin S/o Meheboobsab
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
15. Sopanrao S/o Zharnappa
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
16. Kondabai W/o Chander Dhangar
Age: 62 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
17. Gaibai S/o Gulabsab Mulla
Age: 37 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
18. Vachalabai W/o Kishanrao Shinde
Age: 57 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
19. Sabera Bee W/o Sarver Sab
Age: 47 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
4
20. Manikrao S/o Saiba Gone
Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
21. Ankush S/o Pandu Borale
Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
22. Chabbabai W/o Gundaji Borale
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
23. Sarvarsab S/o Khasimsab Shaikh
Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Tugaon-H, Tq:Bhalki
Dist:Bidar-585 125
... Respondents
(Served)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
Code of Civil Procedure, praying to allow the appeal by
setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated: 30.10.2010,
passed in O.S No.03/2010 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) &
JMFC, Bhalki and consequently dismiss the suit of the
plaintiff with cost.
This appeal coming on for orders this day,
K. Somashekar J., delivered the following:
5
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel Sri Prashant S. Kumman,
who is on record and who has filed Vakalat with no
objection issued by previous counsel Sri Ajaykumar
A.K.
2. The present appeal is filed by defendant No.2
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Bhalki in O.S.No.3/2010 dated
30.10.2010.
3. In this appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 is filed by the
appellant seeking condonation of delay of 2366 days in
filing the appeal. The said application is supported with
an affidavit filed by appellant-Sudhakar. In the affidavit
it is stated that his counsel has not given proper reply
about disposal of the suit and further asked him to sign
on Vakalat for appearing in the final decree proceedings
and that the appellant being illiterate does not know the
Court proceedings. Therefore, there is delay in
preferring the present appeal which is not intentional
but for the aforesaid reasons. The learned counsel for
the appellant has filed better affidavit pursuant to the
direction of this Court. However, in the better affidavit
also there is no sufficient reasons forthcoming regarding
the delay of 2366 days in preferring the appeal.
4. The respondents have initiated the suit in
O.S.No.03/2010 against the appellant and others for
the relief of partition and separate possession and the
said suit came to be decreed.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstance
of the case and taking note of considerable delay of
2366 days in preferring the appeal and also keeping in
view the fact that final decree has been drawn as
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, we
are of the opinion that I.A.No.1/2017 deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. Consequently, in
view of rejection of I.A.No.1/2017, the main appeal is
also stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
BL
