Karnataka High Court
Chennabasappa Dead By Lrs vs Guruswamy on 1 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
CHENNABASAPPA DEAD BY LRS
1. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE CHENNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. MAHADEVSWAMY
S/O LATE CHENNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. MANJULA
D/O LATE CHENNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Digitally signed 4.
by SHARANYA T SHIVAPPA
Location: HIGH S/O LATE CHENNABASAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
KARNATAKA
5. SHANKARAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
6. MALLAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KADATALAKATTE
HUNDI VILLAGE,
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 123
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P MAHESHA AND MANISH ARADHYA D P,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURUSWAMY
DEAD BY LRS
1. MANGALAMMA
W/O LATE GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. JAGADISH
S/O LATE GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. ANKAPPA
S/O LATE GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. SHIVANAGAMMA
D/O LATE CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT KILLAGERE
VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGARA
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 127
6. DEVAMMANNAMMA
W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
D/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT BELATTURU VILLAGE
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
PANKAHALLI POST
TALAVADI PIRKA, SATHY TALUK
TAMILNADU - 638 431
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, GUNDLUPET, IN R.A.NO.153/2017 DATED 13.10.2017
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET IN O.S.NO.134/2011 DATED
06.11.2015 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellants on IA
No.1/2022 where there is a delay of 794 days in filing the
above appeal.
2. Having heard the appellants' counsel and
also on perusal of reasons assigned in paragraph No.3 of
the affidavit wherein it is sworn that due to death of their
elder brother entire responsibility to maintain the family
had fallen on them and they are not in a position to visit
their advocates. In the year 2019 they made efforts to
meet the advocate but, they could not meet the advocate.
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
In the year 2022 they met the advocate
Sri.P.S.Guruprasad and came to know that the other
advocate Sri.G.B.Nanjappa who passed away at Gundlupet
and subsequently taken copy of the judgment and filed
the appeal. It is also stated in the affidavit that due to
illiteracy and they are the innocent villagers and also not
aware of the procedure due to the lack of knowledge about
the judgment of the First Appellate Court, due to ill health,
death of their elder brother, due pandemic and also due to
death of their previous advocate at Gundlupet, they are
unable to secure the document and hence, there is a delay
of 794 days in filing the appeal.
3. Having perused the records, particularly
the judgment of the appellate Court and the same is dated
13.10.2017 and also it is stated in the affidavit itself that
they enquired about the appeal in the year 2019 itself.
But, they could not meet their advocate. Thereafter, they
have not made any efforts to verify the status of the
appeal, only in 2022 they made an effort to verify the
status of the appeal. The very affidavit is clear that they
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
made an enquiry in the year 2019 itself, but could not
made any efforts to get the status of the appeal and other
reasons assigned are that they are the illiterate, rustic
villagers and not aware of the legal proceedings, same
cannot be a reason to condone the delay. Here, as there is
a delay of 794 days even excluding the period of Covid-19
and this appeal was dismissed in 2017 itself, the Covid-19
pandemic was commenced in the year 2020 and in the
year 2019 according to them when they made an enquiry
about the appeal there is no Covid-19 pandemic, even
after that also they have not made any effort to verify the
status of the appeal. Only in the year 2022 January, they
obtained the copy of the judgment. The reasons assigned
in the application and affidavit are not satisfactory. Each
day delay has to be explained and apart from that the suit
is filed for the relief of partition and half share was granted
by the Trial Court and same is confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any reasons given by
the appellants to condone the delay of 794 days. The
judgment was passed in the year 2017 and almost after 5
NC: 2023:KHC:31527
RSA No. 343 of 2022
years has been elapsed, the present appeal is filed in the
year 2022. Hence, no ground is made out to condone the
delay of 794 days in filing the appeal.
4. Hence, I.A.No.1/2022 filed by the counsel
for appellant to condone the delay of 794 days is rejected
and consequently the second appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
