Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Surendra Maniyani on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30870
RSA NO.2032 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 145.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI - 576 101.
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
UDUPI - 576 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA)
AND:
SURENDRA MANIYANI
S/O KUNNIRAM MANIYANI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O PALUKOTE,
Digitally signed by
NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
ARUNKUMAR M S UDUPI - 576 101.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07TH JANUARY, 2012
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.NIL/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AS INFRUCTOUS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 12TH JUNE, 2007 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT
NO.605 OF 1991 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30870
RSA NO.2032 OF 2018
(JR.DN.), UDUPI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant-
Authorities assailing the order dated 07th January, 2012 passed
in Regular Appeal No.Nil/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Udupi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First
Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal as having become
infructuous and confirming the judgment and decree dated 12th
June, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.605 of 1991 on the file of
the Principal Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Udupi (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the
respondent herein was decreed.
2. Heard Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for appellants.
3. Having heard Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for appellant-
Authorities and on perusal of the appeal papers, the same
would indicate that there is a delay of 2374 days in filing the
NC: 2024:KHC:30870
RSA NO.2032 OF 2018
appeal. In this regard, appellants have filed application IA.1 of
2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation
of delay in filing the appeal.
4. On Perusal of the affidavit accompanying application
IA.1 of 2021, particularly at paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the
deponent-Tahsildar of Udupi Taluk has stated that, due to
administrative reasons, they failed to file the appeal in time.
However, I am of the considered opinion that the said reason
cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to condone the
inordinate delay of 2374 days in filing the appeal. Therefore,
following the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS reported
in (2005)3 SCC 752, the application filed by the appellants to
condone the delay in filing the appeal is deserved to be
dismissed as the appellants have not shown the sufficient cause
to condone the delay. Accordingly, application IA.1 of 2021 is
dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
