Karnataka High Court
Sri Basappa vs Smt Muddamma on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
RSA No. 411 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAPPA
SON OF GIRITHIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MACHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT MUDDAMMA
WIFE OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
THEJASKUMAR N CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PIN CODE-577 213.
2. SRI RAJAPPA
SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
3. SRI THIPPESHAPPA
SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
-2-
RSA No. 411 of 2019
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
4. SMT MEENAMMA
WIFE OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AGRADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 301.
5. SMT RATHNAMMA
WIFE OF CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
6. SMT SAKAMMA
WIFE OF NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SEVANAGARA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
7. SMT JAYAMMA
DAUGHTER OF THIPPESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HUNASEGHATTA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 501.
8. SMT SUSHELAMMA
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOLALKERE VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
-3-
RSA No. 411 of 2019
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 501.
9. SMT SUVARNA
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
10. SMT HANUMAKKA
WIFE OF CHANRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MACHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
11. SMT NETRAMMA
WIFE OF CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AGRADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 301.
12. SMT NAGAMMA
WIFE OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YEREHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
13. SMT MUDDAMMA
WIFE OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
-4-
RSA No. 411 of 2019
14. SRI RAJAPPA
SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
15. SRI THIPPESHAPPA
SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 213.
16. SMT MEENAMMA
WIFE OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AGRADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DATED 03.03.2023, R13 TO R16 ARE DELETED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
SEEKING CERTAIN RELEIFS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Narendra Babu., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Siddamallappa.P.M., for the appellant has appeared in
person.
RSA No. 411 of 2019
The captioned appeal is listed today for orders
regarding condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the
appeal.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appeal
is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree
dated:30.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Channagiri in R.A.No.47/2014. There is a delay of 150
days in filing the appeal. The appellant Sri.Basappa has
sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to
condone the delay. Learned counsel submits that if the delay
is not condoned, the appellant will be put to hardship. Hence,
he submits that the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal
may be condoned.
Learned counsel for appellant has urged several
contentions.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the learned
counsel for appellant and perused the appeal papers and the
application with utmost care.
RSA No. 411 of 2019
This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Channagiri in R.A.No.47/2014. The
Appellate Court disposed off the appeal on 30.06.2018. The
Regular Second Appeal is filed on 25.02.2019. There is a
delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal. The Second Appeal
is filed without filing an application for condonation of delay.
Hence, office raised an objection regarding non-filing of an
application for condonation of delay. On 28.02.2019, the
office raised objection that the appeal memo has not been
accompanied with application for condonation of delay. The
appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in
I.A.No.3/2022 on 20.07.2022. The appellant Sri.Basappa
S/o.Girithimmappa has sworn to an affidavit.
I have perused the affidavit with utmost care. He has
stated that he was instructed by his counsel in Bengaluru to
secure certified copy of the entire proceedings before the
Trial Court and also before the First Appellate Court. He has
also stated that in securing certified copy, there is a delay
and there was a communication gap in securing the certified
RSA No. 411 of 2019
copy from the Trial Court Counsel. Hence, there is a delay
and it is bonafide. Therefore, he requested this Court to
condone the delay.
Sri.Narendra Babu., learned counsel in presenting his
argument strenuously urged that due to Covid-19 pandemic,
the appellant was unable to make an application for
condonation of delay though there was an objection by the
Registry in the year 2019 itself. Counsel therefore, submits
that the delay caused in moving an application for
condonation of delay may be accepted.
Submission made with regard to condonation of delay
is noted with utmost care.
Suffice it to note that the submission made on behalf of
appellant about delay in moving an application for
condonation of delay and the contents narrated in the
affidavit are quite contradictory. The appellant is not diligent
in approaching the Court right in time and the sufficiency of
reason to condone the delay is not satisfactory. It appears
that appellant is not diligent in prosecuting the appeal.
RSA No. 411 of 2019
The reasons accorded in the affidavit and the
submission made on behalf of appellant regarding belated
application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory and
the same is not acceptable by this court. Hence, I find no
justification to condone the delay. Accordingly,
I.A.No.3/2022 is dismissed.
Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is also
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/TKN
