Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma vs Smt Nagamma on 7 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
MFA No. 6105 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6105 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SEEHALLY VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI,
T. NARSIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571101.
2. SRI YOGISHA S
S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEAR S
R/AT NO.133/A
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE
B. SEEHALLY, SEEHALLY
Digitally signed
MYSURU - 571101
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH 3. TASHWINID/O LATE SOMESHEKERAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 33 YEAR S
KARNATAKA
R/AT SEEHALLY VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARSIPURA
MYSURU - 571101
4. SMT. SUNDRAMMA
W/O LATE DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. SRI S D BALACHANDRA
S/O LATE DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
MFA No. 6105 of 2022
6. SMT. SOWBHAGYA
D/O LATE DEVARAJU
W/O SRI YOGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
7. SRI VISHAKANTA
S/O LATE MAHALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
8. SRI SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE MAHALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ARE
R/AT SEEHALLY VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARSIPURA
MYSURU - 571101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA
D/O SMT BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT. MALLAMMA
D/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3. SRI NATARAJU
S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
4. SRI SHIVANNA
S/OLATE BASVALINGAIAH
S/O SMT GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE BASVALINGAIAH
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
MFA No. 6105 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT B.SEEHALLY VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARSIPURA
MYSURU - 571101.
6. SMT. NAGARATHNA
S/O LATE BASVALINGAIAH
D/O SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/ATMUDUKUTHORE VILLAGE
TALAKADI HOBLI
T. NARSIPURA
MYSURU - 571122
7. SMT. NAGAMANI
D/O LATE BASVALINGAIAH
D/O SMT GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT TAGADOOR VILLAGE
BILIGERE HOBLI
NANJUNGUD TALUK
MYSURU - 571119
8. SMT. LOLAKSHI
D/OLATE BASVALINGAIAH
D/O SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT BANNURU TOWN, BANNUR
T. NARSIPURA TALUK
MYSURU - 571101
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(c) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT.14.07.2022 PASSED IN MISC.8/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, TIRUMAKUDALU
NARASHIPURA, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/O.9
RULE 9 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
MFA No. 6105 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants.
2. Having perused the reasons assigned by the
Trial Court in dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.8/2017,
wherein an observation is made in para 17 stating that no
reasons are assigned by the appellants for non appearance
before the trial court and also the delay in filing of the
miscellaneous petition and that the Trial Court has also
taken note of the admission of PW1, who in his cross-
examination has stated that the final decree is registered
in favour of respondents and the revenue entries are also
made and on the basis of final decree, the respondents are
cultivating their respective properties, the cross-
examination of PW1 is very much clear to believe that the
order in the final decree is given full effect. Having
considered the same, the Trial Court has dismissed the
miscellaneous petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would vehemently contend that the Trial Court
has committed an error in dismissing the petition as there
was a of only 145 days in filing of the miscellaneous
petition.
4. The Trial Court also recorded the evidence of
PW1 who is the appellant and an observation is made that
neither sufficient reasons are given nor sufficient cause is
shown to condone the delay. Admittedly, the final decree
proceedings are already completed and possession is also
delivered in favour of respondents and the same has been
taken note of in para 20 of the Trial Court order.
5. No doubt, the reasons are given in the affidavit
in support of the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 that there was a break down of the
vehicle and hence, they could not reach the Trial Court in
time, but the fact is that when the appeal is dismissed for
non compliance and also having perused the order sheet,
though the appeal was filed on 29.05.2017, the matter
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
was listed before the court on 31.05.2017 and
13.06.2017, office objections were not complied and
ultimately, the R.A was dismissed on 22.06.2017 and
while dismissing the same also, an observation is made
that despite granting sufficient time, the appellant has
failed to comply with the office objections and hence, the
appeal is dismissed.
6. Even after dismissal of the appeal for non
compliance, the petition is not filed within the period of
limitation and there was a delay of 145 days. It is noticed
that appellant was also examined before the Trial Court
and the Trial Court has also taken note of the admission
on the part of PW1 and having regard to the fact that FDP
proceedings are already completed and also respondents
are put in possession in terms of the final decree, when
such being the admission available on record, I do not find
any ground to set aside the order of the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:5242
7. The Trial Court has also considered the
subsequent development and also the fact that the Final
Decree Proceeding was filed in 2016 and Miscellaneous
petition was filed in 2017 itself and in the meanwhile,
respondents are already put in possession in terms of the
Final Decree Proceedings. Hence, I do not find any ground
to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
